Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TBrandley ( talk · contribs) 15:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Issues:

• Lede: The lede is very too small. Please, summarize the full article, for every section
• Do Not Track: Is in need of expanding
• Malware blocking: This section is out-of-date. Please update it
• Usage: Chrome overtook Firefox in November 2011. As of May 2012, StatCounter measured Chrome and MSIE at roughly 32% usage share each, with Firefox at 26%. the third reference after shouldn't be spaced. That is Ref. 224
• References: Ref. 4, 149 - Isn't a good source
• References: Ref. 19 - Should be Google Blog as the publisher
• References: Ref. 43, 54 - Googlechromereleases.blogspot.com should be Google Chrome Blog
• References: Ref. 59 - chrome.blogspot.com should be Chrome Blog
• References: Ref. 73 - chrome.blogspot.com.au should be Chrome Blog Australia
• References: Ref. 94 - Ref. 94 is a dead link. See here.
• References: Ref. 123 - Ref. 123 needs an accessdate. See here.
• References: Ref. 132 - Ref. 132 is a dead link. See [1].
• References: Ref. 139 - Ref. 139 is a dead link. See here.
• References: Ref. 141 - Ref. 141 is a dead link. See here.
• References: Ref. 145 - Ref. 145 is a dead link. See here.
• References: Various - Missing publishers

On hold for now. TBran dl ey 15:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Patched ref issues ( diff). Any other glaring problems before I start on the prose? -- Nathan2055 ^{talk - contribs} 18:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC) reply

No. TBran dl ey 19:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't agree. For a start:

• The are a lot of short paragraphs, mostly three sentences long; and single paragraph sections /subsections.
• There are "direct quotations" with no citations, for example: two in History, the first paragraph in Development, several in Release channels and updates, one in Retina screen support, two in Usage,
• Ref 226 is using wikipedia as a reference.
• Some of the references are blogs, which brings into question as to whether they are WP:RS, arguably some are as they are official company blogs, but are all of them reliable?
• Its already stated above that there are references with missing published, some of them have named authors and those are missing as well, for example 17, 40, 46, etc.

Pyrotec ( talk) 14:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply

No issues have been addressed for a while now. I'll have to fail this nomination. Sorry! Please re-nominate after those above concerns have been addressed. TBran dl ey 03:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC) reply