Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acid2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GimmeBot (talk | contribs) at 00:02, 8 April 2009 (Bot tagging closed FAC discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 00:02, 8 April 2009 by GimmeBot (talk | contribs) (Bot tagging closed FAC discussion)
- 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 promoted by Karanacs 15:56, 7 April 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): —Remember the dot (talk)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I have done my best to address the concerns brought up in the previous FACs, and feel that this article now meets the standards of stability, comprehensiveness, and understandability required of featured articles. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TEcH.Review
- Dabs and External links are found up to speed, checked with the respective link checker tools.
- Ref formatting is also found up to speed using WP:REFTOOLS.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Raul654 (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wondering why isn't Google Chrome listed in the intro? Nergaal (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's because Chrome is derived from Safari, which is mentioned in the lead. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. mabdul 0=* 07:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. nneonneo talk 02:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image concerns as follow:
- Can a Commons user with OTRS access verify if ticket #2321205 is meant for all screenshots of the Acid2 test, or just for specific screen captures?
- I have asked Stifle to check. Jappalang (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Usage share of web browsers that pass Acid2.png: please indicate the source(s) used for this graph on the image page itself.- Can you be more specific about what you want to see? The image description page already says "Author: Remember the dot, data from Net Applications". —Remember the dot (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, sorry, I read that as "Author: Remember the dot, from Net Applications" (missed the "data"). On that point, is Net Applications a reliable source for this data (pardon me for asking, I am a bit ignorant on this web statistics industry)? Jappalang (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All statistics should be taken with a grain of salt. While no statistics can be perfectly accurate, these ones are reasonably representative and clearly support the statement "Use of Acid2-conformant web browsers has consistently risen since October 2005." We have some less detailed statistics ([2] [3]) from XiTi, a European company, which also show that use of Acid2-conformant browsers is increasing. I made a spreadsheet of the XiTi data which I'm posting on the talk page for you if you're interested. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be more in line with WP:RS. Although images are not necessitated to be "reliable", we are talking about a Featured Article here, the best that Wikipedia has to offer. The graphs in such articles, likely, would have to be based on data from reliable sources as well, i.e. sources that the industry rely on, e.g. frequent quoting by the media, use as references in scholarly material, etc (per Ealdgyth's oft-quoted Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches). Hence, would it be better to create the chart from the XiTi data (if it is a reliable source), or is Net Application an equally reliable source? Jappalang (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The data has got to come from Net Applications because XiTi does not give us enough information about specific browser versions, and we need that information to be able to make an accurate graph. The XiTi data gives us a very rough idea of increase in use of Acid2-conformant browsers, but cannot tell us, for example, how much of the Internet Explorer use in a given month comes from the Acid2-failing IE7 versus the Acid2-passing IE8. We have to assume that the contribution from IE8 is negligible in all months because IE8 was only recently released. So the value of the XiTi data is simply in verifying the general trend that Net Applications shows; we cannot make the graph from the XiTi data itself. Feel free to browse through Usage share of web browsers also; nearly every statistics source listed there shows the same general trend.
- In short, the Net Applications data is the most detailed data available, and matches the trend reported in other sources. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think that the WP:RS guidelines are to look for a customer with the right size to fit a shoe (rather than selling the right sized shoe to a customer). Reliable, in this project, is not the same as "truth", rather it means that one can reasonably trust the source for its provided data. In particular, it seems Net Applications is relied on simply because it is widely quoted in the articles here, rather than any industry backing (ref:Talk:Usage share of web browsers#NetApplications.com data I also note that Net Applications is a questioned source in the previous FAC for this article, so per the actions there, I am leaving this image up for others to decide. Jappalang (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes we can reasonably trust Net Applications' data. How do we know? For one thing, other sources, like the European company XiTi, verify the data. For another, Net Applications' data has been quoted in PC World, Computerworld, ZDNet, and several others. There is no doubt that the statement "Use of Acid2-conformant web browsers has consistently risen since October 2005" is verifiably correct. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think that the WP:RS guidelines are to look for a customer with the right size to fit a shoe (rather than selling the right sized shoe to a customer). Reliable, in this project, is not the same as "truth", rather it means that one can reasonably trust the source for its provided data. In particular, it seems Net Applications is relied on simply because it is widely quoted in the articles here, rather than any industry backing (ref:Talk:Usage share of web browsers#NetApplications.com data I also note that Net Applications is a questioned source in the previous FAC for this article, so per the actions there, I am leaving this image up for others to decide. Jappalang (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be more in line with WP:RS. Although images are not necessitated to be "reliable", we are talking about a Featured Article here, the best that Wikipedia has to offer. The graphs in such articles, likely, would have to be based on data from reliable sources as well, i.e. sources that the industry rely on, e.g. frequent quoting by the media, use as references in scholarly material, etc (per Ealdgyth's oft-quoted Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches). Hence, would it be better to create the chart from the XiTi data (if it is a reliable source), or is Net Application an equally reliable source? Jappalang (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All statistics should be taken with a grain of salt. While no statistics can be perfectly accurate, these ones are reasonably representative and clearly support the statement "Use of Acid2-conformant web browsers has consistently risen since October 2005." We have some less detailed statistics ([2] [3]) from XiTi, a European company, which also show that use of Acid2-conformant browsers is increasing. I made a spreadsheet of the XiTi data which I'm posting on the talk page for you if you're interested. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, sorry, I read that as "Author: Remember the dot, from Net Applications" (missed the "data"). On that point, is Net Applications a reliable source for this data (pardon me for asking, I am a bit ignorant on this web statistics industry)? Jappalang (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you be more specific about what you want to see? The image description page already says "Author: Remember the dot, data from Net Applications". —Remember the dot (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources: there were numerous outstanding queries on sourcing at the previous FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like there were a few queries that have gone unanswered:
- http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/alpha.html has been replaced by http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngstatus.html#browsers, which is written by one of the authors of libpng, the official Portable Network Graphics library.
- http://www.snailshell.de/blog/ is written by Thomas Much, one of the two developers of iCab, and is used to assert information about iCab.
- http://marketshare.hitslink.com/default.aspx has been discussed above.
- Please let me know if you'd like clarification about any of the other sources. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Our permission relates to "the Acid2 image". Stifle (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like there were a few queries that have gone unanswered:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.