(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline;
(b)
reliable sources are
cited inline. All content that
could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
"...developers believed that Galeon still wasn't feature complete. At the same time..." I do not understand the bold part of the text. Done
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), favorite (A) (British: favourite), criticize (A) (British: criticise), categorize (A) (British: categorise), isation (B) (American: ization), any more (B) (American: anymore). Done
I have spotted the following contractions: Don't, wasn't, doesn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. Done
"Epiphany's main goal is to be integrated with the gnome desktop. We dont aim to make epiphany usable outside Gnome. If someone will like to use it anyway, it's just a plus. Ex: Making people happy that don't have control center installed is not a good reason to have mime configuration in epiphany itself." Please fix all the contractions, capitalisations etc. Done
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe
WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
is considered
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment). Done
Pass
(b) (MoS)
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), favorite (A) (British: favourite), criticize (A) (British: criticise), categorize (A) (British: categorise), isation (B) (American: ization), any more (B) (American: anymore). Done
I have spotted the following contractions: Don't, wasn't, doesn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. Done
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at
Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on
WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. Done
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe
WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
is considered
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment). Done
The article is not adequately cited. Please cite all non-cited material. Done
Examples:
"In reviewing Epiphany in July 2010 Jack Wallen described it as "efficient, but different" and noted its problem with crashes."
"In March 2011 Veronica Henry reviewed Epiphany, saying "To be fair, this would be a hard sell as a primary desktop browser for most users. In fact, there isn’t even a setting to let you designate it as your default browser."
"In reviewing the Webkit-powered Epiphany 2.28 in September 2009, Paul Ryan of Ars Technica said "Epiphany is quite snappy in GNOME 2.28 and scores 100/100 on the Acid3 test."
All that needs to be referenced, and more. Done
The first paragraph of 'Galeon fork' has only 2 references. Please reference the unreferenced material ASAP. Done
The last paragraph of 'WebKit-based' has no references. Please reference the unreferenced material ASAP. Done
'Release history': All the dates and descriptions have to be referenced. Please reference the unreferenced material ASAP. Done
Please reference 'Bookmarks'. Done
'Modularity' table needs to be referenced. Done
Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)
One external link is a dead link, please fix it or remove it. Done
Pass
(c) (original research)
The reviewer has no notes here.
Pass
Broad in its coverage:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (major aspects)
There should be a section dedicated to 'System requirements'. Remember that there are 32-bit systems and 64-bit systems. Done
Pass
(b) (focused)
The reviewer has no notes here.
Pass
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
When the article is adequately referenced, I can say the article is neutral. Done
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe
WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
is considered
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
Pass
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute.
Notes
Result
The reviewer has no notes here.
Pass
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
images,
video, or
audio:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
The reviewer has no notes here.
Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)
The reviewer has no notes here.
Pass
Result
Result
Notes
Pass
On hold for 7 days.Well done on bringing Epiphany (web browser) to the GA Standards!
Thank You for this great work! I have several comments and questions right now:
1(a)4, 1(b)2: Fixed
1(a)5: it is a citation. Aren't we supposed to preserve them in their exact form? Done
1(a)6, 1(b)4, 4.2.: there are two occurrences of "is considered" in the article: one in citation, another is referenced. Any suggestions? Then it is Done.
2(a): the
Reception section is organised on paragraph per review basis. Each paragraph is followed by a reference to the actual review. Do You think the reference should be duplicated after other citation throughout paragraphs?
2(b): Fixed
My knowledge doesn't allow me to address properly issues 1(a)3 and 1(b)1, hope someone could help me with that.
Epiphany doesn't have any official hardware requirements, so should I omit them or should I hunt for the requirements of its dependencies? The only thing I've found by now is "Computers purchased in the last 4 or 5 years should be more than capable of running GNOME 3."
As Epiphany is part of GNOME desktop, it doesn't have separate dependencies. Should I provide a list of software needed to be installed to run Epiphany? If so, can I use a
build script as a reference?
I did the minor changes needed for the other stuff, now only the lede, or 1a1/1b3, needs to be expanded. I'll guess that about 3,000-4,000 characters should do the trick for an article of this size. Good luck! – Plarem(
Usertalkcontribs)20:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)reply
I extedned the lead to 1352 characters (1838 including infobox). I can't think of anything to add there without damaging the article. I did some math: the lead in this article is 10,7% of article's length, which is greater then 2,29% of
Firefox (former FA), 4,96% of
Google Chrome and 5,96% of
Internet Explorer.
MOS:LEAD says that lead is an article's summary, so the ration comparison should be pretty fair. Are You sure this article really needs 3000-4000 chars of lead? —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk)
22:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)reply
2(a)2 The whole paragraph retells reference #3 in short. No unreferenced material.
2(a)3 I accidentally missed this paragraph in November's cleanup. It describes the events of several years ago, a lot has changed since. Just removed — Fixed.
2(a)4 Fixed.
2(a)5 Fixed.
2(a)6 It is already referenced in paragraph right above the table. The ref contents the commented list.
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the
Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of
featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as
copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and
sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline;
(b)
reliable sources are
cited inline. All content that
could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
"...developers believed that Galeon still wasn't feature complete. At the same time..." I do not understand the bold part of the text. Done
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), favorite (A) (British: favourite), criticize (A) (British: criticise), categorize (A) (British: categorise), isation (B) (American: ization), any more (B) (American: anymore). Done
I have spotted the following contractions: Don't, wasn't, doesn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. Done
"Epiphany's main goal is to be integrated with the gnome desktop. We dont aim to make epiphany usable outside Gnome. If someone will like to use it anyway, it's just a plus. Ex: Making people happy that don't have control center installed is not a good reason to have mime configuration in epiphany itself." Please fix all the contractions, capitalisations etc. Done
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe
WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
is considered
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment). Done
Pass
(b) (MoS)
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), favorite (A) (British: favourite), criticize (A) (British: criticise), categorize (A) (British: categorise), isation (B) (American: ization), any more (B) (American: anymore). Done
I have spotted the following contractions: Don't, wasn't, doesn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. Done
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at
Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on
WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. Done
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe
WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
is considered
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment). Done
The article is not adequately cited. Please cite all non-cited material. Done
Examples:
"In reviewing Epiphany in July 2010 Jack Wallen described it as "efficient, but different" and noted its problem with crashes."
"In March 2011 Veronica Henry reviewed Epiphany, saying "To be fair, this would be a hard sell as a primary desktop browser for most users. In fact, there isn’t even a setting to let you designate it as your default browser."
"In reviewing the Webkit-powered Epiphany 2.28 in September 2009, Paul Ryan of Ars Technica said "Epiphany is quite snappy in GNOME 2.28 and scores 100/100 on the Acid3 test."
All that needs to be referenced, and more. Done
The first paragraph of 'Galeon fork' has only 2 references. Please reference the unreferenced material ASAP. Done
The last paragraph of 'WebKit-based' has no references. Please reference the unreferenced material ASAP. Done
'Release history': All the dates and descriptions have to be referenced. Please reference the unreferenced material ASAP. Done
Please reference 'Bookmarks'. Done
'Modularity' table needs to be referenced. Done
Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)
One external link is a dead link, please fix it or remove it. Done
Pass
(c) (original research)
The reviewer has no notes here.
Pass
Broad in its coverage:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (major aspects)
There should be a section dedicated to 'System requirements'. Remember that there are 32-bit systems and 64-bit systems. Done
Pass
(b) (focused)
The reviewer has no notes here.
Pass
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
When the article is adequately referenced, I can say the article is neutral. Done
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe
WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
is considered
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
Pass
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute.
Notes
Result
The reviewer has no notes here.
Pass
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
images,
video, or
audio:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
The reviewer has no notes here.
Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)
The reviewer has no notes here.
Pass
Result
Result
Notes
Pass
On hold for 7 days.Well done on bringing Epiphany (web browser) to the GA Standards!
Thank You for this great work! I have several comments and questions right now:
1(a)4, 1(b)2: Fixed
1(a)5: it is a citation. Aren't we supposed to preserve them in their exact form? Done
1(a)6, 1(b)4, 4.2.: there are two occurrences of "is considered" in the article: one in citation, another is referenced. Any suggestions? Then it is Done.
2(a): the
Reception section is organised on paragraph per review basis. Each paragraph is followed by a reference to the actual review. Do You think the reference should be duplicated after other citation throughout paragraphs?
2(b): Fixed
My knowledge doesn't allow me to address properly issues 1(a)3 and 1(b)1, hope someone could help me with that.
Epiphany doesn't have any official hardware requirements, so should I omit them or should I hunt for the requirements of its dependencies? The only thing I've found by now is "Computers purchased in the last 4 or 5 years should be more than capable of running GNOME 3."
As Epiphany is part of GNOME desktop, it doesn't have separate dependencies. Should I provide a list of software needed to be installed to run Epiphany? If so, can I use a
build script as a reference?
I did the minor changes needed for the other stuff, now only the lede, or 1a1/1b3, needs to be expanded. I'll guess that about 3,000-4,000 characters should do the trick for an article of this size. Good luck! – Plarem(
Usertalkcontribs)20:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)reply
I extedned the lead to 1352 characters (1838 including infobox). I can't think of anything to add there without damaging the article. I did some math: the lead in this article is 10,7% of article's length, which is greater then 2,29% of
Firefox (former FA), 4,96% of
Google Chrome and 5,96% of
Internet Explorer.
MOS:LEAD says that lead is an article's summary, so the ration comparison should be pretty fair. Are You sure this article really needs 3000-4000 chars of lead? —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk)
22:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)reply
2(a)2 The whole paragraph retells reference #3 in short. No unreferenced material.
2(a)3 I accidentally missed this paragraph in November's cleanup. It describes the events of several years ago, a lot has changed since. Just removed — Fixed.
2(a)4 Fixed.
2(a)5 Fixed.
2(a)6 It is already referenced in paragraph right above the table. The ref contents the commented list.
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the
Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of
featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as
copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and
sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.