Talk:Norton Internet Security

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Norton Internet Security has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Computer Security / Computing  (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Mid-importance).
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Norton Internet Security:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Norton Internet Security/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be reviewing this article shortly. Techman224Talk 23:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What is a good article?[edit]

A good article is— </noinclude>

  1. Well-written: Green tickY
    (a) the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; Green tickY and
    (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.Green tickY
  2. Verifiable with no original research: Green tickY
    (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;Green tickY
    (b) all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; Green tickY and
    (c) it contains no original research. Green tickY
  3. Broad in its coverage: Green tickY
    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Green tickY and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style) Green tickY.
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Green tickY
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Green tickY
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Green tickY
    (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; Green tickY and
    (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Green tickY


version 22.5[edit]

So I reverted some of the past tense stuff for 2 reasons. The first is that it is still supported software that is receiving updates. Secondly, and I'll have to double check the WP guidelines on this, but it will still be software even when support ends. Now in this case, since it will probably lose most functionality if/when support ends, then maybe at that point it should change to past tense. Or at least when the software stops being updated.

Also, I removed the expansion needed tags, because there seems to be little point to having them there. I was the one who put them there anyway.

Just wanted to explain my actions. See you in the archive. Autumn Wind (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

In reference to the above statement, I've changed the archival of this page to 90 days (hopefully) with a change above. 10 days is far too often, and NAV and N360 are set to 90, so I copied that. Autumn Wind (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)