Wikipedia:Peer review/Favicon/archive1

Favicon[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to get tis article to GA or maybe to FA when I'm finished. I have only(?) to update one section/table with actual support, add some version numbers, and to correct the design of the last support table.

Regards, mabdul 15:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I want to solve the question with this peer review if the Apple-touch-icon should get a own section or if I/we split it out to a new article although I don't believe that there is enough content and that the section belongs in some cases to the favicon. mabdul 20:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article, which I think would need a lot of work to pass FAC and somewhat less woprk for GAN. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are 17 FAs in Category:FA-Class Computing articles and 3 at Category:FA-Class Internet articles. Of these, Opera (web browser) seems closest to this and would perhaps be the best model. My guess is that looking at the GA articles in these WikiProjects might give some more applicable models.
Looking at the FA criteria, I think this needs some work to meet criteria 1a well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard and 1b comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. More on each follows.
The prose is OK for the most part, but fairly rough in spots. As one example consider the first sentence from History Microsoft released in March 1999 Internet Explorer 5 with the favicon support.[4] This is fairly clear as to what is meant, but would be much smoother as something like In March 1999, Microsoft released Internet Explorer 5 which supported favicons for the first time.[4] (I assume this was the first browser to support favicons - it would help to make this clearer).
There are also a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections, which break up the flow of the text. Wherever possible, I would either combine the short paragraphs and sections, or perhaps expand them.
There is a lot of technical material in the article and much of it is not really explained well for an interested lay reader. As one example, consider this This table illustrates the different possibilities, how the favicon can be recognized by the web browser. Then the first row of the table is just <link rel="shortcut icon" href="http://example.com/myicon.ico" />. The average reader will have no idea how this is different from the other three rows of code, or what any of them mean. Brief explanation would help - please see WP:JARGON and make sure to provide context to the reader.
Once the article has been expanded to meet comprehensiveness concerns, I would make sure to get a copyedit.
As far as comprehensiveness goes, I still have a lot of questions after reading the article. Did Microsoft develop the favicon? If so, when did they start to work on it? Is the name of the person(s) who came up with the idea known? Is there any information on usage in the early days? How quickly did the idea catch on (I can vaguely recall a time when there were no favicons and when I first started noticing them). I also wonder about defunct browsers like Netscape, or even how current browsers like IE 8 work with these.
- Ms has developed it. No more information about that. On the original press release and history of IEs the favicon isn't mentioned. Really sad. I can provide more information on Netscape - it supported the favicon since the browser based on Mozilla/Gecko... IE8 and other IEs are "discussed" in nearly every section, but especially in the comparison tables. Don't think that I need more work at IE. mabdul 14:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure the lead is an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
- will do that. mabdul 14:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs more references, for example The "apple-touch-icon" icon is modified to add rounded corners, drop shadow, and reflective shine. Alternatively, an "apple-touch-icon-precomposed" icon may be provided to instruct devices not to apply reflective shine on the image. Use one of the following example of code for HTML and XHTML. seems not to have a ref, and many of the table entries seem to be missing refs too. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
- Will look for the rest references. As I said: the apple touch icon is not my idea. But I will get behind this. Maybe I will find independent sources (other than apple). mabdul 14:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Mostly with these two apple documentation links all is done. I add some more, but mostly blogs ;( mabdul 18:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 22 seems to need a publisher. In general, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
- I will overhaul the actual references. mabdul 14:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - done, mostly publisher is not known (only domain) but the author... mabdul 18:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure the sources used meet WP:RS
- done. mabdul 18:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead image is of a Firefox screenshot. Might want to check the licnsing compared to File:Firefox 3.6 Screenshot.png
- Is not a Firefox screenshot, it is a Minefield snapshot. The license is ok/correct.
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
- Read. Content included nothing new to me, but I never read this signpost... mabdul 17:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for this really good review. I will look later at the article and will change it to get it better. mabdul 14:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]