| Revision as of 01:56, 8 March 2009 editDabomb87 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users66,457 edits dabs← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:07, 10 March 2009 edit undoWhatisFeelings? (talk | contribs)699 edits →Opera (web browser)Next edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| :::::that is one source, and the section lacks sufficient critical remarks; the FAR issues are already stated, and implied.] (]) 19:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | :::::that is one source, and the section lacks sufficient critical remarks; the FAR issues are already stated, and implied.] (]) 19:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::"the section lacks sufficient critical remarks" - Are you aware of any further criticisms? If so, please insert but editors can't invent criticisms. I'm not implying there aren't any, just that it seems to me all I'm aware of are in the article. ]] 04:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC) | ::::::"the section lacks sufficient critical remarks" - Are you aware of any further criticisms? If so, please insert but editors can't invent criticisms. I'm not implying there aren't any, just that it seems to me all I'm aware of are in the article. ]] 04:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Do you not know how to google??? "but editors can't invent criticisms" - haha, you are sooo funny. Oh gosh. | |||
| :::::::Future development is section #6 - keep the arrangement of sections in line with the Firefox article. | |||
| ] (]) 06:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| You may wish to change or amend the eight dead links (see ). ] (]) 12:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC) | You may wish to change or amend the eight dead links (see ). ] (]) 12:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 06:07, 10 March 2009
Opera (web browser)
- Notified: WP Opera Browser, Remember the dot
- 1d & 1b not met, especially for http://en.wikipedia.org/Opera_(web_browser)#Critical_reception.
WhatisFeelings? (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Let's see..."1d" is "neutral", and "1b" is "comprehensive". So, are you saying that there are opposing viewpoints that you do not feel are adequately discussed? Could you provide links to reliable sources discussing these viewpoints? —Remember the dot 00:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- "1d not met": Because it's a relatively short article perhaps? This is because it is well modularised, surely a merit rather than a fault. If you take the sum of the linked "sub-articles" it's more than comprehensive - some might say overly so. If you mean #Critical reception specifically, it alone has 3 other sub-articles.
- "1b not met": Examples? ɹəəpıɔnı 04:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- The article lacks balance; the entire Critical reception section as whole is an example. Not meeting 1d is a consequence of not meeting 1b. This also responds to the above "are adequately discussed?" To reply more: "provide links to reliable sources" - I googled for a second, and http://operawatch.com/ is among the reliable sources (you may wish to use it as a secondary source), though I like to remind the viewers that, in general, notifiers do not necessarily have an interest in keeping articles FA status when they does not meet the standards noticed, specific to that article.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- as an addition remark, at least the Opera article attempts to improve, while the Firefox one does not, or at least it seems that way.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- The article already cites Opera Watch three times. —Remember the dot 19:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- that is one source, and the section lacks sufficient critical remarks; the FAR issues are already stated, and implied.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- "the section lacks sufficient critical remarks" - Are you aware of any further criticisms? If so, please insert but editors can't invent criticisms. I'm not implying there aren't any, just that it seems to me all I'm aware of are in the article. ɹəəpıɔnı 04:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do you not know how to google??? "but editors can't invent criticisms" - haha, you are sooo funny. Oh gosh.
- Future development is section #6 - keep the arrangement of sections in line with the Firefox article.
- "the section lacks sufficient critical remarks" - Are you aware of any further criticisms? If so, please insert but editors can't invent criticisms. I'm not implying there aren't any, just that it seems to me all I'm aware of are in the article. ɹəəpıɔnı 04:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- that is one source, and the section lacks sufficient critical remarks; the FAR issues are already stated, and implied.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- The article already cites Opera Watch three times. —Remember the dot 19:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
WhatisFeelings? (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You may wish to change or amend the eight dead links (see ). DrKiernan (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed 6 of them. The 7th appears to be a toolserver problem, not a problem with the link. The 8th is in a language I don't speak so I don't know how to fix/find a suitable/relevant alternative. Should non-english links be used as references on en.wiki? Although it's possible the original link pointed to an english article. ɹəəpıɔnı 04:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Dab checker tool reveals two dab links. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)