Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norton 360/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:25, 2 June 2009 [1].

Norton 360

Nominator(s): Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 11:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Norton 360/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now meets the criteria. It is a software by one of the largest security software company Symantec. This product is widely used by many people worldwide. Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 11:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose,

missing publish dates some sources do not have publish dates, however are reliable
incomplete titles for references did not find any problems
missing author names no author mentioned sometimes
ref 15/16 are duplicates done
screenshot is of trial version true
where's the reception/reviews/criticism section? incorporated in article; still need to expand
version/date releases with source? Is that information likely to be contested?
if it contains a number of security features, why is it classified as an Antivirus in the infobox? done
browser dab link ?
http://www. can be removed from address in infobox. done
If it is so widely used then why isn't there more coverage information available?--Otterathome (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now - it's good but i really need properly formatted references and maybe a release and reception. I.e. what did reviewers think were its best features, how many units were sold etc. --Thanks, Hadseys 01:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working on the reception section and researching market share

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. You really should put the authors of the references first and not italicise them, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Suggest withdrawal there is clearly much work and development needed here, it fails criteria 3 of WP:GACR, see the associated article Norton Internet Security to get an idea of the length and layout of how the article should be. A simple news search shows many sources which can be used in the article.--Otterathome (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestions are great

Replies from User:TechOutsider

I did not reach a consensus with User:Tyw7 before nominating this article for FAC; we never even discussed it at all. However, now that the article has been nominated, the pointers given are very useful. Thank you.

Some of the articles used do not have publish dates.

Comments – Change Version History section header to Version history, because "history" isn't a proper noun. Also, reference 25 has a linked date, which has been discouraged in the Manual of Style for some time. References shouldn't be in all capital letters, either. If this does end up not passing, I suggest another peer review. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wish Tyw7 gave me some time to consider and improve the article beforehand. I don't really have the patience to sit down and do all this in one day, however it has to be done in a timely manner. Too bad Tyw7 is taking a wikibreak ... TechOutsider (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.