This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of WikiProject Computer Security 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.
This article is supported by
(marked as WikiProject Computing Mid-importance).
Things you can help
WikiProject Computer Security with:
Answer question about
Same-origin_policy Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also:
Article requests) Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.
This talk page is automatically
archived by MiszaBot II. Threads with no replies in 10 days may be automatically moved.
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.
Techman224 23:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Talk
What is a good article? [ edit ]
good article is— </noinclude>
(a) the prose is clear and concise, it respects
copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the
manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
with Verifiable no original research:
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline; (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; and (c) it contains
no original research.
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the
main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays
focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style) .
: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Neutral
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by
(a) images are
tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are
relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
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)