Wikipedia:Featured article review/Opera (web browser)/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria at 14:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review commentary
[edit]Opera (web browser) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Remember the dot
I am nominating this featured article for review because an update template has been tagged in the article since August 2013. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 11:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Huang, it doesn't look like this has been previously discussed on talk, as required by the instructions. Therefore, I am placing this review on hold and opening a discussion on talk, where you should feel free to participate. If in two weeks your concerns have not been addressed, feel free to re-open the FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Article issues has not been addressed, so I am listing it for review. HYH.124 (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist; organization is spurious, with frequent one-sentence paragraphs, and the article is wanting of current information on the browser's updates and features. Also, "Opera Developer and Opera Next" should be merged somewhere else as it's really awkward in its current position, and regarding "Opera responded to these accusations the next day" - how did they respond? Tezero (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]- @Tezero: You don't vote for delisting just yet. This is the time when people point out the flaws in the article and/or fix them up. Then when the nomination's sat around a while, then it gets moved to the section where you get to vote on delisting or not. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made that mistake before. Just treat my delist vote as a comment and, when this reaches FARC, a delist vote if the problems haven't been resolved. Same with Microsoft. Tezero (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to note that this article covers several web browsers, with one of them – Opera Mini – being only slightly related to the subject (from the technical point of view at least). What is IMO worse, it does so implying that all of those browsers are actually the same software, while developer regards them as distanct products, and I have never seen a source that would mix them as well. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include comprehensiveness, prose and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist; organization is spurious, with frequent one-sentence paragraphs, and the article is wanting of current information on the browser's updates and features. Also, "Opera Developer and Opera Next" should be merged somewhere else as it's really awkward in its current position, and regarding "Opera responded to these accusations the next day" - how did they respond? Tezero (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist; an article with an organization like this (extremely short paragraphs, not fully researched topic) and brief introduction shouldn't be an FA.--Retrohead (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.