Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 17:48, 14 July 2012 [1].

Microsoft Security Essentials

[edit]

Microsoft Security Essentials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Codename Lisa (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I believe this article on Microsoft Security Essentials has reached a level of quality that is expected of a Featured Article and may represent one of the best works of Wikipedia. Although I am not the main contributor of this article, I see the article has received a peer review and I do not see any of the issues mentioned in the peer review, thus I am assuming that they are resolved. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • Welcome to FAC, Lisa. Even though FleetCommand says they're retired, they edited the article 10 days ago, and they've got the most edits. Per FAC instructions, it would probably be best to leave a message on their talk page, even though they're claiming they're not reading it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's going to need some work on the prose; could someone check it for obvious typos? For instance, just in the first paragraph: "computer virus, spyware, rootkits and trojan horses" (viruses), and "but not on Windows 8 that comes with built-in antivirus component of its own". - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Prose isn't close to FAC standards, per comments here and below. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Jasper Deng
  • Well, this is what I see:
      • Well written: Contains some vague/non-professional language, but probably not enough to be a blocker.
      • Comprehensive: Very concise and detailed.
      • Well-researched: While the Softpedia references could be dropped, I don't see it as a blocker.
      • Neutral: Right on the mark
      • Stable: Since when have we had an edit war on this article?
      • Lead: No problems
      • Structure: No problems
      • Consistent citations: Some things are not sourced like the change in the MS stock, but this might not be a blocker.
    3. Media: All images have NFCC rationales, and are not bigger than needed.
    4. Length: Short enough, with the right amount of detail.
  • I personally think it could pass.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, Jasper Deng
Thanks for the feedback. I see that you said "the change in the MS stock" is not sourced. However, if you mean "subsequently Microsoft shares grew by 2.1 percent", it is sourced. You see, the source is at the end of the paragraph, footnote [5]. It is an article by Jim Finkle.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link Check - no DAB-links, no broken external links, however link 4 "Microsoft Software License Terms" does not link to the license terms anymore, but to a customer-friendly summary information. The formal full license text can still be found at http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/products/security-essentials/eula.

  • Please check the external links with the link checker tool for other redirected links - most will be ok, but some may lead to a wrong new location. GermanJoe (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, GermanJoe
Thanks for the feeback. Consider it done.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments, Oppose (for now) - i will try a complete check later. but the prose appears clunky at times, a lot of short facts without much context and flow between some of them. Some quick comments for now.

  • Linked internal sections in the lead, for example "elicited mixed response" links to the review section in the same article. The content list is directly below the lead, for all jumping needs :). The article content should be presented in a structured and logical order, so in-article jumps wouldn't be needed normally. Suggestion: remove the lead links to the same article and add necessary brief context information - the lead itself without any additional information must work as standalone-summary (see WP:LEAD).
  • The date calculation for release dates is probably a matter of taste, but the difference for initial release is too vague (2 years for more than 2,5).
  • "Features" - Sourcing the hardware requirements directly from Microsoft is problematic. Traditionally those requirements are measured too low or with completely unrealistic usage scenarions. Either specify "According to Microsoft ..." or even better, try to find a requirement statement from one of the independent reviewers and testers. In general try to source only the most basic, uncontroversial facts from Microsoft, everything else needs a reliable, independent source.
  • "Development" - statements "In 2005, Microsoft acquired security software firm Sybari of Hauppauge, New York, " and "and shortly thereafter released the Microsoft Forefront line of server security products.". The connection of both statements needs to made clearer, why was Sybari acquired? What role did the Sybari employees and knowledge play in developing MSE, if any?
  • "Morro" <-> "MSE", Morro is introduced in "Development", but its relation to MSE is explained only much later in "Industry response". All new terms need to be clarified at first occurence.
  • "Licensing" - "Hacking" - use the formal terms from the license agreement itself. Interpretation and paraphrasing don't work well with a contract. Only what is explicitly stated in the text counts as agreed.
  • "Licensing" - denial of enterprise usage, i couldn't find that clause in the text. Again only explicitly stated terms are parts of the license agreement (logically implied consequences may arise, but are not technically part of the license).
  • "Review" - "On 30 September 2011, a faulty definition update caused Microsoft Security Essentials to incorrectly tag Google Chrome as malware. The issue was resolved within three hours." has 4 sources. Even for controversial statements 2 (reliable) sources should suffice, pick the 2 best (check for similar instances with multiple sources).

As stated already, try to reread the prose once more or ask someone with two fresh eyes to check it. It's a good interesting article, but i feel, it's not quite at FA level yet. GermanJoe (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello, GermanJoe. Thanks for the comments. I have address the problems you mentioned as follows:
  • Links to internal sections, as testified by article history, has been effective measures of maintaining article stability. In the past, zealous people have undeservedly put {{citation needed}} or {{advert}} in the lead without bothering to check with the body. (I trust you do know that lead section does not require inline citations.) I am open to suggestion of alternatives but this solution has proved itself.
  • Date calculation error stems from a problem in template {{start date and age}} and is noted in its template talk page. I have no power of fixing it. But I trust it will be eventually fixed. Nevertheless, is it really such a blocker?
  • Hardware requirements are only available from Microsoft. Others only copy and paste from Microsoft without crediting Microsoft.
  • Sybari problem is fixed. You are right: It was a fragment and is deleted.
  • Morro/MSE problem is fixed. I added a source to that effect.
  • Licensing problem (1) is fixed.
  • Licensing problem (2) is fixed.
  • As for the last issue, perhaps you do know the policy: Facts that are subject to more controversy or sentimentalism need more sources. This is one such fact. Article history and talk page testifies.
I will get someone else to see the article, but given what you said, I do not think the article issue are so grave that warrant a rejection. They can be fixed on the spur of the moment.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some quick notes, only for the remaining points. Thanks for addressing the issues.
  • Links to internal sections - ok, i see your reasoning. I am not sure, what the majority position is, but it seems to be no dealbreaker in my opinion.
  • Date calculation - suggest 'Initial release' without template for now, but a minor style issue.
  • Hardware requirements - You should attribute "According to Microsoft ..." or similar directly in the article then. As party with a self-interest, Microsoft's informations have to be taken with a grain of salt.
  • Sourcing - see WP:RS and WP:V for more information. "Exceptional" statements need multiple sources, but the google chrome-statement simply tells us, what happened (unless i miss some controversial background). I don't see it as that exceptional. GermanJoe (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi again, this is Codename Lisa. All is done. I have fallen back to {{start date}}, which is another commonly used tag, added "according to Microsoft" and deleted two sources. And a sixth person accepted to look at the article. The result should come in here soon.
Best regards. Codename Lisa (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • "It uses the same antivirus engine as that of the other Microsoft antivirus products"—I think you can remove "that of".
  • "It is supported on Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7 but not on Windows 8 that comes with built-in antivirus component of its own." I'd say comma after "7", and "8, which comes".
  • Not sure about "given ground": "Its popularity has given ground to the appearance of various rogue antivirus programs that imitate its name."—perhaps "has prompted"? Remove "of various". What do you mean by "imitate" here? Tony (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, Tony1
I think the new edits should satisfy you. Actually, "prompt" was not really the case since the popularity of an antivirus does not force anyone to create an impersonating rouge antivirus. Therefore, I changed the sentence structure altogether.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (GermanJoe), i appreciate the effort put into this article, but after checking the first half of the article the prose is clearly not FA-level yet. I believe, there was too little time preparing the article for FA before nomination. The PR appears to have covered some problems, but the overall article would benefit from a complete, thorough check and rewrite of a few parts. Another problem is the current lead, which doesn't work well as complete article summary and a few differences between the article and it's supporting sources (haven't checked images or general source quality). Following a incomplete list of questions and open points:

lead
  1. Is "MSE" the official or just a common inofficial abbrevation? If it is used often, it should be mentioned briefly.
  2. "The announcement of Microsoft Security Essentials elicited mixed response from the antivirus industry, with some predicting its failure, some condemning it and some appreciating its potential for expanding users' choice of antivirus." ==> The second half of this sentence carries almost no specific information, it's all kept very general. Suggestion: rewrite that part with more (brief) detail and a little background:
    1. "predicting its failure" and "condemning" could be condensed to "critizise" or "negative review" with some specific information, why the reactions were negative (f.e. critics suggested a weak antivirus search engine, just a "copy" of the former technique),
    2. also the positive side could be more clear: how would MSE expand users choice exactly? (f.e. it would aim for users not currently having any antivirus software and low budget users).
  3. "Despite this, Microsoft Security Essentials has received generally positive reviews." - Again too vague - briefly name 2-3 of the most praised features (details later in main text).
  4. "On March 2012, it was the most popular antivirus software product in North America and the second most popular in the world." - the rating system or publisher for this should be mentioned. Also as exception: when using "most", "biggest", ...-phrases in lead, a immediate source is usually appropriate (same with quotes or statistic information). Other lead information can be sourced later in main article.
  5. "Due its popularity, several rogue antivirus programs that try to impersonate it have appeared." - missing word, "Due to ...". Also while this is a logical assumption, you still need a source for it, otherwise it's WP:OR.
Features
  1. "Microsoft Security Essentials is an antivirus product[s]." - typo
  2. "It fights malware, malicious software that [are] harmful to a computer environment and its user, ..." - "and its users"? Of course indirectly by damaging their computer environment, but (directly) "harmful to users" sounds odd in that context. Also "malware" and "software" are usually singular form (unless you specifically refer to separate, distinct pieces of malware or software).
  3. " ... including Forefront Endpoint Protection, System Center Endpoint Protection, Windows Intune Endpoint Protection, Windows Live OneCare and Windows Defender." - offtopic for the MSE article, no need to list the whole product family, especially as most readers won't know, what the article is talking about here.
  4. "Microsoft Security Essentials disables Windows Defender, since Microsoft Security Essentials also provides protection against spyware and adware." - not covered by source, the source only says "MSE replaces Windows Defender ..." (as a software product).
  5. "By default, the contents of archived files are scanned. File downloads and e-mail attachments are also scanned." - If the second sentence is also "by default", the 2 phrases could be combined in one, try to avoid too short sentences.
  6. "Its Dynamic Signature Service attempts to better identify malicious files by checking for updates if an application exhibits suspicious behavior." - "Its" should be "MSE's", as the subject changed meanwhile. Also "Dynamic Signature Service" is an unclear technical term. Every time an application is suspicous, the DSS looks for updates? I assume, it's only every time, when a suspicous application without matching virus signature is found. Otherwise the checking would be awfully slow.
  7. " ... of the antivirus." - missing word, antivirus software.
  8. "Also depending ..." - Avoid "also" as much as possible, in most cases it can be removed without problems.
  9. "...a day to Microsoft Update." - new technical term, brief qualifier for "Microsoft Update" needed (for the 2-3 people, who don't own a MS operating system).
  10. " ... Microsoft Security Portal" - again new term, brief descriptor needed.
  11. Check other Microsoft-related terms throughout the article and make sure, they are briefly introduced and linked if available at first mention.
Development
  1. Was the first release called "Version 1.0"? Just checking, if yes, maybe worth mentioning.
  2. "Morro would be free for all genuine installations of Windows not intended for business use (with an exception for small home based businesses) and offers protection against all types of malware.[15]" - source 15 (BBC) does not match this information, needs a thorough recheck and a different source.
  3. "Version 2 can also integrate with Internet Explorer to protect users against web-based threats.[20][21][22][23][24]" Several points:
    1. Does it work with all versions of Internet Explorer or is a minimum IE version required?
    2. "integrate with" is a bit awkward, it's not a part of IE - maybe "can support Internet Explorer to ...".
    3. What types of web-based threats (phishing, cookies, scripts, ...)?
    4. why 5 sources? none of the statements sounds controversial or extraordinary. If they source different parts of the paragraph, try to move them to the related sentences.
  4. "A version 3.0 was never released." - More detail, or let's remove that part (it's obvious from the version list). It is too short and abrupt to work as introduction sentence for a paragraph.
  5. "According to Softpedia, Windows 8 Setup [demands] Microsoft Security Essentials to be uninstalled before upgrading Windows 7." - "demand" is too strong here. Either "asks" or "prompts the user to uninstall ..." would work better.
Licensing
  1. "...or to disclose the results of benchmark tests of this software product to third parties without prior written approval from Microsoft Corporation." - not covered in source, the license agreement (i couldn't find it atleast).
  2. "...[may] cease to operate after a period of time." - The image caption says "...[will] cease to operate ...". Should be consistant. If it's "may cease" it would be interesting to know, in which cases the software does continue even without genuine OS (?).

I'm sorry, if those points sound negative. They are purely meant as positive criticism to help with improving the article. GermanJoe (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe asking for withdrawal is very fair, considering that this does not take more than like 15 minutes to fix.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, German Joe
I just arrived and took a look at your review and frankly I must say some of your suggestions are grammatically and factually wrong. I only mention three because I believe time and effort should be dedicated to the article, not your review.
  • You said: " ... of the antivirus." - missing word, antivirus software. Wrong! "The antivirus" refers to Microsoft Security Essential. "The antivirus software" would refer to all antivirus computer programs collectively.
  • You said: not covered by source, the source only says "MSE replaces Windows Defender ..." (as a software product). Wrong! The source says: "MSE replaces Windows Defender, by the way, since it provides a superset of Defender's capabilities."
  • You said: "demand" is too strong here. Either "asks" or "prompts the user to uninstall ..." would work better. "Ask" and "prompt" are contextually wrong and too weak for our purpose. It demands and strongly so. It is either Windows Setup's way or highway.
I am getting to work. Help just arrived. In the mean time however, please convert your bulleted list into s numbered list, so we know what we are talking about.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Codename Lisa here. Beginning checklist:
Lead:
  1. Fixed but there is no source on how widespread its use is
  2. Fixed
  3. Fixed
  4. Partly fixed. For the sake of style consistency, as long as there are inline links, no inline citation will be provided.
  5. Fixed. Has source.
Features:
  1. Fixed
  2. Fixed
  3. Fixed
  4. Fixed
  5. Fixed
  6. Fixed
  7. Fixed by enforcing consistent use of the word "antivirus" as a modifier or subject complement
  8. Fixed
  9. Fixed
  10. Fixed - at least I think so
  11. Acknowledged
Development:
  1. Reporting affirmative. And sorry, I don't think so.
  2. Fixed
    1. No source available
    2. This word comes from sources. Changing it would be risky because they do not elaborate on the nature of the integration.
    3. No source available to answer.
    4. Improved but all sources remained. Yes, I think all five are necessary and more is needed, because has it been only one or two, I would have been the first to dispute the sources and say "yes, they are generally reliable sources but this time they have dropped the ball." Just see how the sources are unable to address your three questions above. Even with all these sources, the whole story look like sensational journalism. Alas, Wikipedia is about verifiability not logic.
  4. Partially fixed. If I remove that, I have spend the rest of my life answering "what happened to v3?" because there seems to be general consensus around Wikipedia that if there is a version hop, it must be mentioned. Due to lack of source, it cannot be expanded. The only source I found is this: http://confidentialfiles.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/microsoft-security-essentials-why-jump-from-2-to-4/ But do you warrant putting it into the article as a source?
Licensing:
  1. Fixed (a product of change in EULA)
  2. Fixed
Reception:
  1. Fixed
  2. Withdrawn by GermanJoe
  3. Fixed
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk)

I know, a review can be frustrating, but the mentioned issues are not meant to put down the article as a whole (i would be glad to support after a prose overhaul and some additional preparations before FA). Anyway a quick response to your points (in the same order):

  1. "antivirus" is a modifier (see World English or Oxford Dictionary). I am aware that advertising texts and reviews sometimes use it shorthand as full noun, but formally it's "antivirus software", no matter if a single software or the whole type of software is referred to.
  2. "Disable" and "replace" mean two different things. And the source text talks about replacement.
  3. OK. I updated this point in the list. GermanJoe (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello again. Codename Lisa here. Apart from the fact that "antivirus" as a modifier can act as subject complement, using "antivirus software" in this context is misleading. Apart from that, dictionaries quickly grow old and are therefore the most unreliable source of writing style. There are a lot of words that we use that do not appear in dictionary. While three most reputable OSes now use the term "app", it is nowhere in dictionaries. Regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I am not frustrated; in fact I am glad that article is receiving the well-deserved feedback it did not receive during PR. On the whole I think this article is destined to become featured, either now or later. Regards. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On a positive note the remaining article after licensing has a better flow, less singular facts are just "listed". Please keep us posted, when the prose check throughout the whole article is done. A few more minor points:

  1. Industry response "Tom Powledge of Symantec claimed OneCare offered "substandard protection" and an "inferior user experience", implying Microsoft Security Essentials would be the same." - the implication is obvious, but Wikipedia can't state it without a 3rd party source. Suggest to remove the ".. implying part", the reader will draw his own conclusions anyway.
  2. reviews "AV-TEST.org tested and certified Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0 [as?] on March 2011." - name of the certificate would be good here
  3. "... on March 2011. Despite having received the certificate, this [product] ..." - "this product version" would be a bit clearer, the same product gets better with updates, as described later.

Regarding withdrawal or not, i still believe the article was nominated a bit early and the prose needs more work, but the delegates decide finally on their own discretion. Thank you for adressing the mentioned issues and for implementing some of the suggestions. Especially the lead reads better now and contains more information. GermanJoe (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi.
I have added topic sentence to nearly all paragraphs I copy-edited and will keep doing so. Topic sentences summarize the paragraph and therefore do not have an immediate footnote of their own. Yet, their verifiability is my top priority.
Now, as for you #2 comment above, the certificate name is AV-TEST.org certificate. Are you sure it is needed? But I will explain what it certify.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of some impressive sounding certificate titles as for Windows developers or SAP certificates, but if it's simply "AV-TEST certificate" (i like that actually, no marketing fluff), there's no need to elaborate that further. GermanJoe (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, GermanJoe
Okay, this time it took longer but it is done. What do you think now? Still you think the prose is not FA material?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More Comments - the article has been improved considerably, however there are still some more points:

  1. Lead "OPSWAT" - first mention, a brief qualifier would be good. "data provider"?
  2. "Windows 8" throughout the article - the sub-article uses future tense for all Windows 8 features, which seems more appropriate. From the average customers' point of view Windows 8 is not yet released.
  3. Try to avoid similar "listy" sentence structures close to each other, f.e. "It ... . It .... . It ...." (1st para of lead and section "features") - a minor point, but some variety in phrasings will help to improve general prose flow. When possible, try to replace MSE or "it" with a fitting synonym (f.e. last para of "Features" uses only MSE as subject 6 times without any variety).
  4. Features "...the web-based [service] software update service." - first service is redundant.
  5. Development "... focused on the 50 to 60 percent [of PC users] who don't have, or won't pay for, antivirus protection, antimalware protection" - The quote's abrupt stop reads odd. The whole quote is taken verbatim from the source, but maybe add " [...]" to indicate, that the sentence is not finished here.
  6. "...Microsoft quietly released the second version" - Is "quietly" without advertisement or without any official press information or without any information at all? Better to use a more specific description.
  7. Reception "The antivirus industry [also] ..." - say no to "also" :), almost always superfluous.
  8. "after announcing an upcoming [a] beta version ... " - grammar.
  9. "AV-TEST.org tested Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0 on March 2011 [] certified" - missing word "and".
  10. "Report detail shows ..." - "Report details show ..." assuming it was a set of data, not one single fact.
  11. "Since March 2011, Microsoft Security Essentials [is] tested and certified ..." - "was" or "has been" tested, as the text refers to the separate test runs in the past.
  12. "... new/unknown ..." - MOS advices against "/"-constructions, better to spell it out
  13. "... low false-positives (six) ..." - "(only six occurrences)" would read slightly better. Per MOS: try to limit brackets to the absolutely necessary.
  14. "Microsoft Security Essentials v2.0 was released shortly thereafter." - Redundant information, see section with versions. I assume this info is added to explain, why 1.0 was still used for testing in December. To clarify the context maybe: "Microsoft Security Essentials v2.0 was released shortly thereafter, thus it could not be included in the December 2010-tests." or similar.
  15. "On 8 June 2011, PC Advisor listed Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0 in its article Five of the Best Free Security Suites, which included Avast! 6 Free Edition, Comodo Antivirus 5.4, AVG Antivirus 2011 and BitDefender Total Security 2012 Beta." - Are test results available? Why was MSE chosen among the top 5? Brief summary would be enough.

After that round of nitpicking a few general remarks:

  1. "technical" checks like source check and image check are still needed (best by some yet uninvolved reviewer).
  2. The internal lead-linking within the article is ok by me, but would be good to double-check MOS-compliance by another reviewer with more MOS-experience.
  3. The FA-criteria 1a calls for "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", which is probably one of the hardest hurdles to overcome. In my opinion another reviewer -ideally with experience in IT-articles or a GOCE member- is needed to do a thorough, full copy-edit. It's great, that the article is improving on several aspects, but the overall prose is still only "OK or good" and is very hard to raise to "engaging or excellent" with a point by point review. GermanJoe (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
Here is what I did:
  1. Fixed.
  2. Um, I don't quite understand you.
  3. Fixed.
  4. Fixed.
  5. Fixed. But Odd? Unfinished?
  6. It means both. But I am out of ideas for a better phrase. Any suggestion?
  7. Fixed.
  8. Fixed.
  9. Fixed.
  10. Fixed.
  11. Fixed.
  12. Fixed.
  13. Fixed.
  14. Fixed. No, you are right. It was not redundant in the past but it is now.
  15. Actually, I meant to ask you about this. You see, the editors seem to have liked all that the article explains. It does not offer any quantified reason for listing Microsoft Security Essentials on top. The only thing that has prevented me from deleting this is the fact that it is an independent observation.
Look, I am not feeling well now. Must go the hospital. If I didn't come back after ... I don't know, some reasonable time ... please do me a favor and perform the withdrawal and closure procedures. Oh, and please check if I have missed any fix. (Maybe I intended but due headache, actually forgot committing the fix.)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope, you feel better soon - health is certainly more important than some Wiki-article. Some clarification for the remaining points:
  • point 2: Windows 8 is not yet a finalized, released product - in that sense you can (and probably should) use future tense to describe its features. Of course the final product will have the same features as a pre-release, but technically we can't be 100% sure of that.
  • point 6: Refs. 21 and 22 don't say anything specific about the release method, if you want to stay close to the sources, they describe another (after 1.0) limited beta phase (for the same countries again).
  • point 15: The source has several reasons for the top 5 rating, it is probably just difficult to summarize them. In general for all 5 it's "being free" and "working well", the latter is specified for MSE with "protection against a wide range of malware", "realtime protection" and "regular virus definition updates". GermanJoe (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi.
For the time being, I have a laptop and I can be in communication but for a while, no more spending long hours reading and re-reading the article and sources. For now:
  • P2: Ooooh, I am afraid that is going have serious issues with WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL. From a neutral point of view, Windows 8 is now available to general public via the Internet and has an antivirus component. What is written about Microsoft Security Essentials in Windows 8 is what is verified on the available releases of Windows 8 (through sources, of course). As for the future, we cannot tell until it becomes present. We can quote a Microsoft statement about a future promise, but only when such a statement is important beyond its weight as a promise. But if you are not satisfied, let's have a third opinion on this. Jasper Deng? Dank?
  • P6: Is it my headache or do we have a paradigm shift here? I think point 6 was about the word "quietly" which you thought must be clarified. This word is mentioned in [23] and [24]. During my study of the article sources and Binging, I often thought "Wow! MSE 2 must have been released very quietly. No ad, no PR, no nothing..." Then, I realized that two of the sources have thought what I thought. So, I put it there. Perhaps, we should move the word "quietly" out of the topic sentence, where it can be directly attributed to [23] and [24].
  • P15: I guess you are right there. I'll have a go with that in the future. I hope I could ask someone to take care of it.
Best,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P2 and P6, background of both points understood, thanks for your clarification. Windows 8 will not use MSE, i think that's uncontroversial as a fact and will not change. With that in mind, the current handling should be ok. It would be nice to have more details for "quietly", but of course the article can only use existing info, no problem with that. GermanJoe (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, GermanJoe
After some consideration, I finally decided to go ahead and address P15 by deleting the paragraph. You after reading the PC Advisor article one last time, I realized that the article has one problem too many and is not worthy mention in a Featured Article. For one thing, the article refers to "best security suites", whereas none of the participants except the last are security suites. (They are antivirus products.) For another, they have also chosen Comodo Antivirus, which is an awful antivirus product that has times and again failed VB.100 tests. I think any average computer-literate user knows that Avira Antivir is a much better choice for that position. Overall, I think that article is produced in a hurry.
Nevertheless, I am open to a third opinion.
Are there any more issues left? (I am a little muddle-headed now, I am prone to forget.)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The specific points mentioned seem to be all addressed, thank you. However i would like to wait for other uninvolved copy-editors and/or reviewers to check the prose and offer their opinion (see my "general remarks" of June 8). I have this site on watchlist and will check back in, if needed. (i completely agree with your assessment of the top 5-source article, best to focus on the more specific MSE reviews.) GermanJoe (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(indent) I'll do some minor copy-edits to keep me busy. Please check and revert/tweak, when you think something got worse. Often prose problems occur with short stubby sentences, repetitive phrasing or convoluted structures with too many sub-clauses. However i am not that experienced in copy-editing, a GOCE-member would be much more qualified. GermanJoe (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes, I have been tracking it now. Most of them are good but I am afraid the last three are very tacky.
1: "Microsoft announced a number of over 30 million users for its product" – it's not English really; it's odd. Definitely not professional or engaging.
2: Okay, I don't remember what was the last time I saw a colon being used for inline attribution in English. In a couple of other languages, yes, but English? I don't remember.
3: Now, I really don't understand this one.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pt. 1 and 2 - go ahead and tweak them please, that's why i put up a disclaimer of my editing skills :). Thanks for catching and improving those points. I struggled to get the "Microsoft announced"-part neatly into the first structure, with Microsoft and Microsoft Software Essentials close to each other. Point 2: i have seen colons for inline attribution several times in articles (it's a nice change to "According to ...", when it's not overused). Point 3 is a case of "two independent sentences with a close connection to each other" - a matter of style, but certainly worth a semicolon. GermanJoe (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
I'll be discharged on Monday; until then, I won't be able to edit Wikipedia anytime I want. But thanks.
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Microsoft_Security_Essentials/archive1&oldid=1077422973"