Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norton Internet Security/archive2

Norton Internet Security

Nominator(s): Tyw7

• Featured article candidates/Norton Internet Security/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Norton Internet Security/archive2

I am nominating this for featured article because Norton Internet Security is a popular software made by the world's leading security companySymantec. I think this article have all it takes to be a feature article. It is long, informative, contains good grammar, and is a Good Article. Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 10:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Have you contacted significant contributors to the article? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Contacting TechOutsider. Can you list the other contributors below. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 21:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply - Other notable contributors include User:TechOutsider and User:Ched Davis. The edit count tool is extremely useful in determining the major contributors. TechOutsider (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure this is ready yet jimfbleak (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • refs are not formatted correctly, random capitalisation, bare urls etc
  • It is unclear to me why refs like Softpedia, Dave Taylor, or the Amazon review by David Jardine are reliable

• Proposition I think we (the members of WikiProject Software) should make a body of formatting experts, who will go-through the proposed Featuring Article & then contact the major contributors to finalize. And after their confirmation the real nomination should take place (so, even if the article was not been selected, it will go through a thorough formatting, thus increasing the overall quality). Tell me guyz, what you all think about it (I know its a very bad place to discuss this - but not too bad to initiate discussion, later we will create a page for it).

• Comment,

Well I have no problem with selecting Norton Internet Security for Featuring but jimfbleak does have points.

Tyw7 and all active contributors & leaders - feel free to vandalize my talk page (hey, no! seriously :P ) its getting summer hibernation & I'm going dumb. Poke me with your 'Ideas' - always welcome. I'm tired of mechanical editing :( . – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 08:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'd suggest discussing this at the Wikiproject Software talkpage - you'll reach more people than by posting here. Wikiproject:Military History (MILHIST) has a similar peer review process, you might like to take hints from that. Note that messing around with things with the intention of getting it to FA and not involving the major editors isn't really an option. Ironholds (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• In regards to "FBI cooperation", the only source I see is a response to a hypothetical question. None of the sources are an independent report on whether Symantec detects Magic Lantern or not. If that is the only information there is, it should be more clear. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Replies from User:TechOutsider

• jimfbleak, thank you for bringing the issues to attention. I will look into them. As for the Softpedia editorials, I believe they are reliable because the Firefox article also references Softpedia. It has been delisted (true), however not because of the references.
• Ironholds, excellent suggestion. Should I withdraw this article? TechOutsider (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If that is what you and the other nominators want. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think, its getting either serious or humorous - somebody help me understand (no seriously guys, shake each others hand :P ). Ironholds, I mentioned to include Major Contributors - didn't I ? – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 19:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• HamburgerRadio, I will be looking into that section. Are you questioning if Symantec really whitelisted ML or not? TechOutsider (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, and also 1) Any product developer that recognizes specific software must have to make several decisions a day about whether to detect possibly misusable tools. Is there a wider perspective that can be provided? Do they usually comply with developers who request that their software not be detected? 2) Is the article for a product, that did not exist at the time the original statement about Magic Lantern was made, the best place to discuss this? Edit: I misunderstood the article and thought the version list was complete. It appears NIS did exist at the time the statement was made. Although I still wonder if a wider perspective than just NIS is appropriate. Also, that means a more complete history of NIS is needed in the article. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  Reply I will be looking to see if I can find information about earlier editions of Norton Internet Security prior to 2006. Yes, other vendors also whitelisted ML, and I will be adding a broader perspective. TechOutsider (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a version of NIS earlier than 2006. NIS produced every year with the earliest version in 2000, so that's NIS 2000. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 09:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source to confirm that? Because right now a press release from Symantec seems to imply there were even earlier versions. See here; it says NIS00' continues to best competitors. TechOutsider (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

At least that was the earliest NIS I could find. NIS 1999 or NIS 1998 brought up no result. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 17:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.softpedia.com/
    • The Firefox article references Softpedia articles. Such as ref 126
      • To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Specifically, use of a site in an (older) FA doesn't necessarily mean it's reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • http://www.frogdesign.com/pdf/frog_design_symantec.pdf
  • http://www.thehackademy.net/madchat/vxdevl/papers/avers/paper141.pdf
  • Srinath. Interview. On-line chat w/Norton tech support. April 14, 2009 (given this information I could not find this article ... I need more information in order to locate the article for verification)
    • Looking at the sentence preceding the ref, it seems to be irrelevant. I removed the sentence and the ref entirely.
  • http://www.thepcspy.com/read/what_really_slows_windows_down/5
  • http://av-comparatives.org/
    • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 30#AV-comparatives
      • That was remarkably unconclusive about whether it's reliable or not. It basically boiled down to "maybe" Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • http://www.ablestable.com/products/software/system/reviews/norton-5.htm
  • http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25471
  • http://www.kaspersky.com/news?id=266
  • http://utopia.csis.pace.edu/dps/2007/jkile/2005%20-%20Spring/DCS823/Spyware/01016895.pdf (Does this guy have permission to host this, if not, its a copyright violation)
  • Lai, Karen. Wren, David. (2009). "Antivirus, Internet Security and Total Security Performance Benchmarking Edition 3", PassMark Software Pty Ltd (given this information I could not find this article ... I need more information in order to locate the article for verification)
  • http://windowssecrets.com/
  • http://www.askdavetaylor.com/how_can_i_fully_remove_norton_antivirus_from_my_system.html
  • http://www.betanews.com/article/Symantec-Vista-White-Paper-Links-to-PatchGuard-Crack/1172700498
• Okay, your refs are a mess. Current ref 6, for example. You've got Lawrence M. Fisher as the title of the journal/magazine (it's really the New York Times and Fisher is the author). This confusion of authors and works/publishers continues throughout the referencing. I really don't need to point them all out, it'd take forever.
• In other refs, there is no journal/magazine listed at all, instead you're listing the publishing company instead. While listing the publisher company isn't wrong, you need to give the title of the magazine, journal, newspaper also. (See current ref 17 (Rad tech gifts...) for an example., but there are many others.
• Per the MOS, link titles, shouldn't be in all capitals even when they are such in the original.
• https://dawnworldhub.blogspot.com/2024/02/what-is-cyber-security.html
• Current ref 25 (Symantiec says...) has a bare url in there. Why does it have two links?
• Current ref 26 is just a bare url. Needs publsishers, etc.
• http://www.creationengine.com/html/p.lasso?p=14595 deadlinks

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive advice. I will be looking into the issues. TechOutsider (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. While this has promise, it's clear it has not been properly prepared and a lot of work needs to be done to get it ready. FAC is not the place to pull the article up to par. Suggest withdrawing to fix up the referencing, eliminate the unacceptable sources, and so on. Please work with the primary editors before renominating. --Laser brain (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  Comment. I agree with User:Laser Brain. I only have a netbook currently, which makes correcting mistakes a pain. User:Tyw7 has not edited the article recently; see Revision history of Norton Internet Security. Another fail would be a demerit to the article. TechOutsider (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.