Wikipedia:Peer review/Line Mode Browser/archive1

Line Mode Browser

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want list the article as GAN, but I'm not really sure that the article would pass. What is missing? What parts are good or must be improved to achieve the GA status? Thanks, mabdul 15:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start, but the article is not nearly ready for GAN. Here are suggestions for further improvement.

The lead should be a summary or abstract of the main text sections. Nothing should appear in the lead that is not covered in the main text. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead does not mention the main text sections; instead it is a kind of introduction rather than a summary. WP:LEAD has tips on writing a good lead.

Rather than adding a lot of in-line citations to the lead, it's customary to cite claims in the main text. Since the ideal lead is a summary of the main text, any claim that appears in the lead will have a citation later in the article. Exceptions to this rule would be direct quotations or truly extraordinary claims made in the lead.

"is the second web browser" - Does this mean the second ever created?

"The browser is developed by the" - Should this be "was" rather than "is"?

"test application for the libwww library" - Abbreviations like "libwww" should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use.

Most abbreviated terms should be spelled out and abbreviated on first use. I mentioned libwww above, but I am thinking also of MicroSoft Disk Operating System (MS-DOS), Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron (DESY), What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG), and so on. Many readers do not know what these and other abbreviations (HTTP, WAIS, etc.) mean.

"Berners-Lee and his team didn't have any" - Wikipedia generally avoids contractions like "didn't" and instead uses "did not".

"The distribution was by telnetting info.cern.ch in beginning of the web and was announced in June 1991 by Berners-Lee in the alt.hypertext in the Usenet." - Some strange grammar occurs here and there in the article. I think this means "Users could obtain the browser by telnetting info.cern.ch. Berners-Lee announced the browser's availability in June 1991 in the alt.hypertext category of Usenet."

Generally, the Manual of Style deprecates extremely short paragraphs and extremely short sections. Two possible solutions are to expand or merge. Perhaps the three short sections, for example, could be smoothly merged with "History".

Any unusual claims or statistics need in-line citations to reliable sources. Every paragraph needs a citation, but if the citation appears in the middle of the paragraph, everything thereafter will appear to be unsourced. This is the case in both paragraphs of the "Operating mode" section, where the later claims of the paragraphs do not appear to have a source.

Date formatting in the "Further reading" and "References" sections should be consistent.

Reference numbers should appear after the end punctuation of the phrase or sentence being sourced, not before the punctuation.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed many, if not all, of the issues raised here.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]