![]() | AVG PC TuneUp has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Yes, I thought the article would be better in prose format, not just a list of features. I guess I'm just old fashioned about encyclopedias. To be honest, it looks like an advertisement since all the article focuses on is the the features of the program. Mike Allen 10:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
As for you MikeAllen, I don't know why you feel like that. The article describes the features from a neutral point of view. It does not use peacock terms or any other feature of the advertisement.
However, I think I can tone down the article's overly bold look. I won't make it completely prose but I think I can satisfy you.
Fleet Command ( talk) 11:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)First, the article is notable because it meets the requirements of Wikipedia General Notability Guideline, meaning that it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary source; source such as PC Advisor magazine, CNET Editor's Review and LAPTOP magazine. If you don't think this article is notable, nominate it for deletion in WP:AFD; but I believe this article will survive your nomination.
Second, this article does not violate Wikipedia Manual of Style. If it does so prove it. Otherwise, keep your feeling to yourself: You don't own Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort in which pretty much everything works through consensus, not mere feelings.
Third, in my humble opinion, Ckatz edit is vandalism because it is ruinous; it destroys what can be fixed instead of destroying. Even if I am wrong, it is still a bold edit that I find controversial and hence I am still perfectly at liberty to undo it per WP:BRD. Therefore, your act of responding to my BRD revert with another revert is an instance of edit warring. You should learn to be civil and enter discussions instead of responding to other people's objections with the brute force of revert.
Last but not least, the article is now in prose form. I think your original objection is now fulfilled. Next time, if you felt an article has problems, instead of destroying it, stand aside and let other people fix it.
Fleet Command ( talk) 12:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)First, I don't assume in the face of evidences – be it good faith or bad faith. It's time you actually read WP:AGF. Second, article already has reliable sources; it just doesn't have footnotes, which is not mandatory. In time, you might want to know that since the notability of the article is established, Primary sources are also acceptable for feature description parts.
And don't call me "paranoid"; it is a personal attack. If you don't want to fix an article, do not offend those who try to fix it. Fleet Command ( talk) 14:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's see: WP:VANDALISM defines vandalism and considers content removal and disruption of integrity as an instance of it. This edit closely resembles the definition. So, as you see, I'm not assuming anything. If I'm wrong, tell me where; but don't say I'm assuming bad faith. There is of course a better alternative: We both forget that edit, focus on the article and is problem and start improving this thing.
As for this article being advertisements, there is a distinction between advertising something and neutrally describing something. Let's talk about it. Fleet Command ( talk) 05:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
First, if you had registered yesterday, I'd have been very polite with you and I'd have sympathized with you; I do not bite newcomers. (Not that I am biting you now; but I am not sympathizing either.)
Second, stop using vague words like "Encyclopedic"; cite a Wikipedia policy or guideline to support your statement because I don't see anything wrong with the article besides its potential for improvements.
Third, you confessed that you write film articles; most film articles in Wikipedia are chiefly made up of a "Plot" section and a "Characters" which cites no source. Now, you come here and contest an article because it chiefly describes its subject? You contest the contents that resemble what you yourself make? Strange.
Fleet Command ( talk) 05:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)That is not I. But I do have a fairly good idea who he is. (Possibly a colleague who wanted to help out. That is obvious from his sentimentalism.)
Anyway, I do know that there is primary sources in the article and I have already stated that they are perfectly ALLOWED: Citation one is reinforced by citation three and hence valid. Citation two is only used for application version number because it is the software download page. The public consensus in Wikipedia is that such use is correct. See this:
“ | A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. | ” |
— WP:PRIMARY |
Fleet Command ( talk) 20:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say you are making it; I just said don't! Now, who is not assuming good faith? Me or you? And you STILL have not produced a discussion that you are expected to produce in defense of your contribution.
And as for grammatical errors, nobody nominates an article for deletion because it has grammatical errors. Go ahead and fix the grammar, I don't mind. As for vandalism, I already told you that your contribution to the article closely matched the definition given by WP:VANDALISM and told you the solution. Yet you keep reminding it. Now, who is not focusing on the problem and is trying to poison the discussion?
Do I need to remind you guys that the contents of this discussion is completely irrelevant to its topic? Instead of nitpicking on me and the article, violating my privacy and producing flawed discussions about notability, reliability of source and verifiability, please focus on the problem at hand and produces the discussion that you STILL have not produced: What constitutes the difference between a detailed NPOV article and an advertising one? Fleet Command ( talk) 06:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's get back to the topic of this discussion. In the meanwhile, I have tried to improve the article by making it more neutral, adding several references, introducing a version history as suggested by User:MikeAllen and fixing some errors. Do you think that the main problems outlined in this section have been solved now, or does the article still need any substantial improvements in these areas? If you also feel that the problems have been solved by the recent edits, I would go ahead and remove the "advert" and "copyedit" issue tags. JMetzler ( talk) 12:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Right, as to the length of the section. Opera (web browser) is a Featured Article right now. Not much length in history section -- just like Microsoft Security Essentials. Now, Norton Internet Security and Norton 360 are Good Articles. Just look at the length of that history section... It's long! Now, Linux, Windows Mobile and Mac OS X are also Good Articles with long history sections, but they are highly notable, so that's natural isn't it? Not really. If you look at all of them, you find one pattern: The history section size is appropriate to the amount reliable secondary sources available. So, if you have source, help yourself.
Oh, and you might like to look at Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Comprehensiveness is one of the criteria. So, no one says "cutting-down" on size is a must; but comprehensiveness is a should.
Fleet Command ( talk) 19:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)I say not good. Comprehensiveness is a requirement for an article to become a featured article. (Opera, a featured article does have this section.) You have sources for them and so far no one has registered a logical objection to the presence of this section. So, why delete it?
Yes, Ckatz has expressed concern that this article is written like an advertisement but even he has not objected this section. To be accurate, he has adamantly refused to specify which part, let alone producing a valid argument as the instances of boastful statements. (He had 12 days to do so.) So, in case you are acting in that regard, I think you should reconsider your decision.
The correct way to do this, in my humble opinion, is to bring more input to this article by contacting the project. I will see to it.
Fleet Command ( talk) 19:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)I just added some info about this product but for some reason it's not appearing on my watchlist or do your own changes appear in your own watchlist? I am running Windows XP 32 bit Professional using the Opera Web Browser. Can you help me on my Glary Utilities article? Anish9807 ( talk) 10:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: DQ (t) (e) 17:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Good work!
Use the templates in the show box below to comment on how the tasks are going.
Templates to use
|
---|
|
Oh, no, you are not "blind". But are you sure you have paid attention to these:
"The Fix problems section provides access to TuneUp Repair Wizard which allows users to selectively repair problems that TuneUp Utilities cannot automatically detect."
"Other components include a defragmentation tool, ..."
"It also gives access to TuneUp Disk Space Explorer (a disk space analyzer)..."
"Other items include a graphical replacement for Windows CHKDSK, ..."
Right now, I am clarifying TuneUp Drive Defrag and TuneUp Disk Doctor a bit. But please let me get this straight: Do you want me to repeat what I said in Features section once more in Development section? (Redundancy?) I can do that. Just say the word. Fleet Command ( talk) 08:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, here is another part I just added:
Also in this category, there is TuneUp Disk Doctor. It can check the integrity of files stored on hard disk drives and salvage damaged files. It can also scan for physical defects known as bad sectors and isolate them. TuneUp Disk Doctor is a graphical replacement for Windows CHKDSK.
And a modified part:
Incorporates two more components: TuneUp Drive Defrag (the defragmentation tool) and TuneUp Repair Wizard (the troubleshooting tool).
If you are still unsatisfied, please just say. Fleet Command ( talk) 09:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
FleetCommand made some changes based on his interpretation of the recommendations above. They did not appear to be entirely beneficial or appropriate, so I attempted to rework them However, FC has repeatedly restored them with accusations of "edit warring"; I'm not willing to engage in such games over such a trivial matter, so I'll leave it up to the assessor to render judgement. --04:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckatz ( talk • contribs)
Something about how the standard install craps all over your browser making yahoo the default everything without asking.
Anything that alters your PC without asking is malware, IMO.
The article seems to present only positive points about the product.
But a Web search shows that some people have experienced negative results from running the product, particularly the registry cleaner feature, in various releases of the product.
The published reviews do not mention problems. They don't mention corruption of icons, new popup ads, BSODs, inability to run programs, or the other problems reported in a few places.
Changing the Windows Registry is dangerous. It is full of indirection chains of UIDs and pathnames, without any protection by redundancy or other mechanisms. No registry cleaner can be tested fully, on every possible configuration of customization, applications, and settings. The lack of any balance in this article, any source of unbiased and exhaustive testing for any version of this product, raises in my mind a concern that the article might encourage the use of registry cleaning, which reviewers report as dangerous, by this particular product. Consumers might feel that the product is completely safe in spite of no evidence showing this.
Once a Registry or other parts of Windows get corrupted, recovery may or may not be possible. The Web has many reports of people searching desperately for help, and being forced to re-install Windows itself (for various versions of Windows). Not mentioning even the possibility of such potential disasters seems misleading to me, and WP should never mislead.
What do other WP editors think? Please post your Agree or Disagree opinions in this section below. David Spector ( talk) 14:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The latest release of AVG PC TuneUp has a different set of features for which we have no references, reviews, documentation. However, the feature set is very different from what's on the wiki page. Can we do something to make the page accurate given that we don't have sources? Empey at Avast ( talk) 19:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Empey at Avast https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/TuneUp_Utilities https://www.avg.com/en-ww/tuneup-utilities try contacting the Spanish PR department. Other language articles have already changed the page name, have references and have been completed. You're getting the run around if nobody has given you a press kit. WP:MOVE Verify references ( talk) 06:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Please also see the reliable sources noticeboard discussion at WP:RSN § AVG PC TuneUp IAR. — Newslinger talk 22:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
My name is Charlotte Empey and I work for Avast, which now owns AVG.
I made numerous copy edits and other non-controversial changes. However, there are two changes that are more substantial and/or controversial I was hoping an independent editor would consider making:
These proposed changes are shown here. Thank you in advance for taking the time to take a look and considering making the proposed changes. Empey at Avast ( talk) 18:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | AVG PC TuneUp has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Yes, I thought the article would be better in prose format, not just a list of features. I guess I'm just old fashioned about encyclopedias. To be honest, it looks like an advertisement since all the article focuses on is the the features of the program. Mike Allen 10:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
As for you MikeAllen, I don't know why you feel like that. The article describes the features from a neutral point of view. It does not use peacock terms or any other feature of the advertisement.
However, I think I can tone down the article's overly bold look. I won't make it completely prose but I think I can satisfy you.
Fleet Command ( talk) 11:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)First, the article is notable because it meets the requirements of Wikipedia General Notability Guideline, meaning that it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary source; source such as PC Advisor magazine, CNET Editor's Review and LAPTOP magazine. If you don't think this article is notable, nominate it for deletion in WP:AFD; but I believe this article will survive your nomination.
Second, this article does not violate Wikipedia Manual of Style. If it does so prove it. Otherwise, keep your feeling to yourself: You don't own Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort in which pretty much everything works through consensus, not mere feelings.
Third, in my humble opinion, Ckatz edit is vandalism because it is ruinous; it destroys what can be fixed instead of destroying. Even if I am wrong, it is still a bold edit that I find controversial and hence I am still perfectly at liberty to undo it per WP:BRD. Therefore, your act of responding to my BRD revert with another revert is an instance of edit warring. You should learn to be civil and enter discussions instead of responding to other people's objections with the brute force of revert.
Last but not least, the article is now in prose form. I think your original objection is now fulfilled. Next time, if you felt an article has problems, instead of destroying it, stand aside and let other people fix it.
Fleet Command ( talk) 12:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)First, I don't assume in the face of evidences – be it good faith or bad faith. It's time you actually read WP:AGF. Second, article already has reliable sources; it just doesn't have footnotes, which is not mandatory. In time, you might want to know that since the notability of the article is established, Primary sources are also acceptable for feature description parts.
And don't call me "paranoid"; it is a personal attack. If you don't want to fix an article, do not offend those who try to fix it. Fleet Command ( talk) 14:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's see: WP:VANDALISM defines vandalism and considers content removal and disruption of integrity as an instance of it. This edit closely resembles the definition. So, as you see, I'm not assuming anything. If I'm wrong, tell me where; but don't say I'm assuming bad faith. There is of course a better alternative: We both forget that edit, focus on the article and is problem and start improving this thing.
As for this article being advertisements, there is a distinction between advertising something and neutrally describing something. Let's talk about it. Fleet Command ( talk) 05:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
First, if you had registered yesterday, I'd have been very polite with you and I'd have sympathized with you; I do not bite newcomers. (Not that I am biting you now; but I am not sympathizing either.)
Second, stop using vague words like "Encyclopedic"; cite a Wikipedia policy or guideline to support your statement because I don't see anything wrong with the article besides its potential for improvements.
Third, you confessed that you write film articles; most film articles in Wikipedia are chiefly made up of a "Plot" section and a "Characters" which cites no source. Now, you come here and contest an article because it chiefly describes its subject? You contest the contents that resemble what you yourself make? Strange.
Fleet Command ( talk) 05:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)That is not I. But I do have a fairly good idea who he is. (Possibly a colleague who wanted to help out. That is obvious from his sentimentalism.)
Anyway, I do know that there is primary sources in the article and I have already stated that they are perfectly ALLOWED: Citation one is reinforced by citation three and hence valid. Citation two is only used for application version number because it is the software download page. The public consensus in Wikipedia is that such use is correct. See this:
“ | A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. | ” |
— WP:PRIMARY |
Fleet Command ( talk) 20:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say you are making it; I just said don't! Now, who is not assuming good faith? Me or you? And you STILL have not produced a discussion that you are expected to produce in defense of your contribution.
And as for grammatical errors, nobody nominates an article for deletion because it has grammatical errors. Go ahead and fix the grammar, I don't mind. As for vandalism, I already told you that your contribution to the article closely matched the definition given by WP:VANDALISM and told you the solution. Yet you keep reminding it. Now, who is not focusing on the problem and is trying to poison the discussion?
Do I need to remind you guys that the contents of this discussion is completely irrelevant to its topic? Instead of nitpicking on me and the article, violating my privacy and producing flawed discussions about notability, reliability of source and verifiability, please focus on the problem at hand and produces the discussion that you STILL have not produced: What constitutes the difference between a detailed NPOV article and an advertising one? Fleet Command ( talk) 06:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's get back to the topic of this discussion. In the meanwhile, I have tried to improve the article by making it more neutral, adding several references, introducing a version history as suggested by User:MikeAllen and fixing some errors. Do you think that the main problems outlined in this section have been solved now, or does the article still need any substantial improvements in these areas? If you also feel that the problems have been solved by the recent edits, I would go ahead and remove the "advert" and "copyedit" issue tags. JMetzler ( talk) 12:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Right, as to the length of the section. Opera (web browser) is a Featured Article right now. Not much length in history section -- just like Microsoft Security Essentials. Now, Norton Internet Security and Norton 360 are Good Articles. Just look at the length of that history section... It's long! Now, Linux, Windows Mobile and Mac OS X are also Good Articles with long history sections, but they are highly notable, so that's natural isn't it? Not really. If you look at all of them, you find one pattern: The history section size is appropriate to the amount reliable secondary sources available. So, if you have source, help yourself.
Oh, and you might like to look at Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Comprehensiveness is one of the criteria. So, no one says "cutting-down" on size is a must; but comprehensiveness is a should.
Fleet Command ( talk) 19:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)I say not good. Comprehensiveness is a requirement for an article to become a featured article. (Opera, a featured article does have this section.) You have sources for them and so far no one has registered a logical objection to the presence of this section. So, why delete it?
Yes, Ckatz has expressed concern that this article is written like an advertisement but even he has not objected this section. To be accurate, he has adamantly refused to specify which part, let alone producing a valid argument as the instances of boastful statements. (He had 12 days to do so.) So, in case you are acting in that regard, I think you should reconsider your decision.
The correct way to do this, in my humble opinion, is to bring more input to this article by contacting the project. I will see to it.
Fleet Command ( talk) 19:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)I just added some info about this product but for some reason it's not appearing on my watchlist or do your own changes appear in your own watchlist? I am running Windows XP 32 bit Professional using the Opera Web Browser. Can you help me on my Glary Utilities article? Anish9807 ( talk) 10:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: DQ (t) (e) 17:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Good work!
Use the templates in the show box below to comment on how the tasks are going.
Templates to use
|
---|
|
Oh, no, you are not "blind". But are you sure you have paid attention to these:
"The Fix problems section provides access to TuneUp Repair Wizard which allows users to selectively repair problems that TuneUp Utilities cannot automatically detect."
"Other components include a defragmentation tool, ..."
"It also gives access to TuneUp Disk Space Explorer (a disk space analyzer)..."
"Other items include a graphical replacement for Windows CHKDSK, ..."
Right now, I am clarifying TuneUp Drive Defrag and TuneUp Disk Doctor a bit. But please let me get this straight: Do you want me to repeat what I said in Features section once more in Development section? (Redundancy?) I can do that. Just say the word. Fleet Command ( talk) 08:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, here is another part I just added:
Also in this category, there is TuneUp Disk Doctor. It can check the integrity of files stored on hard disk drives and salvage damaged files. It can also scan for physical defects known as bad sectors and isolate them. TuneUp Disk Doctor is a graphical replacement for Windows CHKDSK.
And a modified part:
Incorporates two more components: TuneUp Drive Defrag (the defragmentation tool) and TuneUp Repair Wizard (the troubleshooting tool).
If you are still unsatisfied, please just say. Fleet Command ( talk) 09:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
FleetCommand made some changes based on his interpretation of the recommendations above. They did not appear to be entirely beneficial or appropriate, so I attempted to rework them However, FC has repeatedly restored them with accusations of "edit warring"; I'm not willing to engage in such games over such a trivial matter, so I'll leave it up to the assessor to render judgement. --04:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckatz ( talk • contribs)
Something about how the standard install craps all over your browser making yahoo the default everything without asking.
Anything that alters your PC without asking is malware, IMO.
The article seems to present only positive points about the product.
But a Web search shows that some people have experienced negative results from running the product, particularly the registry cleaner feature, in various releases of the product.
The published reviews do not mention problems. They don't mention corruption of icons, new popup ads, BSODs, inability to run programs, or the other problems reported in a few places.
Changing the Windows Registry is dangerous. It is full of indirection chains of UIDs and pathnames, without any protection by redundancy or other mechanisms. No registry cleaner can be tested fully, on every possible configuration of customization, applications, and settings. The lack of any balance in this article, any source of unbiased and exhaustive testing for any version of this product, raises in my mind a concern that the article might encourage the use of registry cleaning, which reviewers report as dangerous, by this particular product. Consumers might feel that the product is completely safe in spite of no evidence showing this.
Once a Registry or other parts of Windows get corrupted, recovery may or may not be possible. The Web has many reports of people searching desperately for help, and being forced to re-install Windows itself (for various versions of Windows). Not mentioning even the possibility of such potential disasters seems misleading to me, and WP should never mislead.
What do other WP editors think? Please post your Agree or Disagree opinions in this section below. David Spector ( talk) 14:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The latest release of AVG PC TuneUp has a different set of features for which we have no references, reviews, documentation. However, the feature set is very different from what's on the wiki page. Can we do something to make the page accurate given that we don't have sources? Empey at Avast ( talk) 19:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Empey at Avast https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/TuneUp_Utilities https://www.avg.com/en-ww/tuneup-utilities try contacting the Spanish PR department. Other language articles have already changed the page name, have references and have been completed. You're getting the run around if nobody has given you a press kit. WP:MOVE Verify references ( talk) 06:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Please also see the reliable sources noticeboard discussion at WP:RSN § AVG PC TuneUp IAR. — Newslinger talk 22:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
My name is Charlotte Empey and I work for Avast, which now owns AVG.
I made numerous copy edits and other non-controversial changes. However, there are two changes that are more substantial and/or controversial I was hoping an independent editor would consider making:
These proposed changes are shown here. Thank you in advance for taking the time to take a look and considering making the proposed changes. Empey at Avast ( talk) 18:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)