Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive2

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 GrahamColm 18:13, 20 September 2012 [1].

Microsoft Security Essentials

Featured article review/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive1

Nominator(s): Codename Lisa (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is the second time this article is nominated for Featured Article. Last time, all opposing points of views were addressed and all Oppose declarations were withdrawn. Article has not changed much ever since (11 edits). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the article not promoted last time? It does seem that all opposing points of view were addressed and that oppose declarations were satisfied with your response and without further opposition, if not formally withdrawn. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I asked Graham Colm the same question. He says an FAC must receive at least three explicit Supports. Last FAC had received only one from Jasper Deng. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the standard was a little high the last time I supported this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support, Jasper. But I am pretty sure you should start your sentence with "Support:", or else it won't be counted. Sorry, if I look too agitated on this. Last time I went to the hospital in the middle of FAC and I was practically a newcomer. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it will still be counted. I've put supports in different parts of sentences in the past (although it is generally best to lead with them). Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the level of detail and prose, which has seen improvements since the last nomination. I think the article gets it right on length, which can be difficult with software articles from what I've seen. Cloudbound (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article is generally of a good standard but I question its overall balance: it seems to me rather too positive in tone, quoting absolute rather than comparative figures in a very positive light. The general attitude to MSE across the whole spectrum of reviews is that it does not overly impact on system performance but has relatively poor detection rates and painfully slow scanning speed.[2] There's a fairly recent, in depth comparison of many AV tools from PC Magazine [3] which does not portray MSE in an overly positive light and also references other independent reviews that on balance come to broadly similar conclusions. These are criticisms not even hinted at in the article, I suspect a certain amount of positive bias in reference selection.

Even the sources given have a degree of distortion: reference 57 is cited for an award for "Overall Performance". If you read the reference the official classification is "Overall Performance (Low System Impact)" - there is another performance category in the same report - "On-Demand Scanning Speed" which it does not feature in the rankings for, unmentioned in the article. That kind of selective quoting reeks of a lack of balance.

Of course, it is important not to swing too far the other way, but right now I find the article is simply too uncritical to merit FA status. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hi.

I did notice what you said, but I also noticed other things too, to which I'd like to attract your attention. First, the poor detection rate source that you introduced pertains the beta of version 1.0. Mind you, this issue did not elude the article coverage at all: The article says "the Beta release of Microsoft Security Essentials did poorly in PC Magazine tests" and the rest of the story.

Second, let's have look at what the article says about MSE protection: "Despite having received the certificate, this product received a protection score of 2.5 out of 6"; "it lacks personal firewall and anti-spam capabilities"; "Microsoft Security Essentials 2.1 has received scores of 3.0 [...] for protection..."; "a faulty definition update caused Microsoft Security Essentials to incorrectly tag Google Chrome as malware". Indeed, how do you regard a protection score of 2.5 out of 6 this as "portray MSE in an overly positive light"? I see from these sentences is that MSE offers the worst protection ever.

Third, source #57, which pertains to Awards section, says "AV-Comparatives.org awarded ... the Bronze award for overall performance" and there is a reason for it: MSE performed better than 15 other products. But why it did not win On-Demand Scanning Speed award? Was it because it was worst than all 19 others by a huge margin or was it because it lost by a very small margin to Panda? Last but not least, if the overall performance is good, how important it is that a subcategory of the overall performance is not so good? So, at best, such a statement is meaningless and at worse it threatens the article's neutrality. The list awards that software in general do not win is always huge, but the reason is not always because they are abysmal.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk)

The very first sentence of the PC Advisor review makes it clear that they are reviewing version 1.0 and not a beta. You use that "stinky review here, but hey it was a beta" in the article in the only critical source you cite. It doesn't hold here. The PC Magazine review was less that two weeks old, and the other reviews it cites are all under a year old. As I noted above, the award was not for "Overall Performance" and it is misrepresenting the source to portray it as such. If it lost "by a very small margin" to Panda in terms of scanning speed which won the gold award then surely it won the silver or bronze awards? Oh no, it didn't get those either.

Instead of addressing these issues you seek to defend the product and excuse poor reviews. That is a fundamental compromise of neutrality and to be honest it makes me dubious of the article as a whole. I'm now of the opinion that this article needs major involvement of outside editors, because you appear to be leaning towards positive description whether that is intentional or not. For that reason I am now registering a oppose on this article's candidacy. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Quantumsilverfish

You seem to be under some misapprehensions here: Panda won Bronze award, not Gold. Avast and Avira won Gold. Symantec won Silver. Microsoft Security Essentials won none. Please see page 6.

Actually, yes, I was wrong about the source; I thought it is one which I had checked before. So, I humbly apologize for my mistake. Let's start over, shall we? Let's look at what you want; then you tell me what you want changed and I change it, okay? Here:

You have said, "The general attitude to MSE across the whole spectrum of reviews is that...	Article says...
...it does not overly impact on system performance...	Four source cite its low resource usage AV-Test.org gives it a usability score of 5.0 out of 6.0
...but has relatively poor detection rates...	This product received a protection score of 2.5 out of 6 Version 2.1 received a protection score of 3.0 out of 6
...and painfully slow scanning speed."	Some full scans took over an hour on infected systems; a scan on a clean system took 35 minutes.

So, you, I and the article seem to agree. What is wrong?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I propose another addition to the article: An AV-TEST.org chart shows Microsoft Security Essentials to have been the worst security suite ever in 2011. What do you say to that? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is rather poorly written fancruft. To take just one example at random, in the five-sentence section entitled "Version 4.0" Microsoft Security Essentials is mentioned five times. Malleus Fatuorum 04:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then what do you suggest to fix that? It's already with not much room to improve compared to most other articles I see.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  I see a great deal of room for improvement Jasper, else I wouldn't have opposed. Malleus Fatuorum 16:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Malleus. Your sentence about that section is true; but with due regards to WP:FACR,I cannot understand why you think it is a blocker. Perhaps, you would care to explain? Beside, do you really think that reason is enough to Oppose the whole article? Don't you think it can be fixed a with a simple edit? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blocker because an FA's prose is required to be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" according to criterion 1a. Let me give you another example. Take a look at the Features section; of its five paragraphs the first four all begin "Microsoft Security Essentials ...". Malleus Fatuorum 16:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am afraid I am not sure I follow you. Why do you think there should be no mention of the subject of the article in the article itself? More precisely, what harm the arbitrary number of characters, words or phrases in an article inflicts upon its literary value? Or, if you also feel that we are going off topic, please paraphrase yourself. After all, we are here to solve problems, aren't we? And by the way, with regard to Wikipedia:Fancruft, please explain what sort of fancruft do you see in the article. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say that there should be no mention of the subject in the article itself? That would obviously be absurd, but equally I don't want it rammed down my throat in every sentence and at the start of every paragraph. That's pedestrian and boring, not at all engaging or professional. Let me give you yet another example: The Version 2.0 section begins like this: "Almost a year after the initial release of Microsoft Security Essentials, Microsoft quietly released the second version. Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0 entered the technical preview stage on 19 July 2010." Why not say instead something like "Version 2.0 was quietly released almost a year after the initial product release; it entered the technical preview stage on 19 July 2010." Does that not seem less repetitive to you? If you don't agree that something along those lines would be an improvement throughout the article, then I'm afraid my oppose will have to stand. Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Now I understand you. I will look into this issue immediately. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I scanned the article and tried to reduce the number of redundant references to the product name. Waiting for your feedback. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly a step in the right direction, but a similar problem occurs throughout the article. Look at the Rogue antivirus software section for instance. In seven sentences the word "malware" is used eight times. Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Anything else? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very significant improvement, and if you did the same throughout the entire article I'd certainly reconsider my oppose. But take a look at the Awards section; two sentences, each of which contain "Microsoft Security Essentials". Is there no commonly accepted abbreviation used for the product, such as "MSE"? And the issue I raised earlier still hasn't been addressed. How many times is "Microsoft Security Essentials "mentioned in the Features section? And the first four of the five paragraphs still begin "Microsoft Security Essentials ...".

You also need to look at the writing more generally. For instance: "Later on October that year ..."; "Microsoft shares grew by 2.1 percent" (shares don't grow); "... a source of influence for PC users to adopt free antivirus software" (either it's an influence or it's not); "... install and use the product on an unlimited number of their computers in their households" (that first "their" is clearly redundant; "On 13 September 2011, at the Microsoft BUILD conference in Anaheim, California, Microsoft unveiled the developer preview";

Hi. Now that I see your objection was not only those couple of instance, I'll review the entire article and try to apply a more strict redundancy filter. (Only I wish you had said it in the beginning.) Actually I have completed checking "features" section and in fact I restored one instance of "Microsoft Security Essentials" that I previously replaced with "it" due to misinterpretation risk. And no, "this product", "the product" and "the antivirus" where all no-go there.

And by the way, please do not use "but" at the beginning of sentences of the article. It is unprofessional. "But" always comes in the middle. Instead of "but" at the beginning, consider "nevertheless"/"however"/etc.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you ought to have read what I actually wrote more carefully: "to take just one example random". Malleus Fatuorum 15:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you are completely and utterly mistaken about the use of "but" at the beginning of a sentence. Check in any style guide and you'll see that's a superstition taught by primary school teachers, along the lines of the nonsensical "'i' before 'e' except after 'c'". 15:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Malleus. Please do not refactor my message. And your edit warring has rendered this article ineligible for FA. So, stick to your oppose. It does not matter any more. I will continue to sweep the article for redundancies only for the sake doing so. Thanks for ruining all my efforts and breaking WP:BRD. And by the way, use of "However" instead of "but" is not a matter of grammer; it is style. Best regards (?), Codename Lisa (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you are completely and utterly wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 16:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All edit warrior use the same pretext: "You are wrong". However, it does not matter anymore: One failed nomination is no different from the other.

Can someone please tell me how to withdraw the nomination? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to get a grip on your temper; it seems to be running away with you. I understand that you find it incomprehensible that you might be wrong, but in this instance you most definitely are wrong. Perhaps when you cool down you'll feel grateful for having learned something. Malleus Fatuorum 16:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not refactor my message. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Get your head to gate Codename Lisa, nothing is failed. One extra revert is not edit warring (some say) and FA isn't failed so easily. (It fails easily, trust me, but not so easily.) Continue sweeping the article for redundancies and if he did not withdraw his oppose, just take your chance with the closing moderator. Your chances are very slim but I say you take it. You have already secured three supports and Malleus has already shown multiple instances of disruptive behavior. There is a chance they will not go unnoticed. Fleet Command (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any "disruption" here has not been caused by me, no matter how you want to misrepresent history. I stand by my opinion that this article's prose does not meet FA criterion 1a, although it is improving in response to the examples I've provided. But FAC is not peer review, and I'm quite shocked that the article had three support votes given the state it was in when I first looked at it. I've fixed a few things myself, and I'm not averse to striking my oppose should the work I think needs to be done be done. But I reject utterly this accusation that I'm some kind of ogre with expectations that are way too high for FAC. Anyone who truly believes that needs to start a discussion on removing the requirement for prose to be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard".

I intend to offer no further commentary in this review, other than to encourage those who have supported to actually read the article for themselves. All of it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I feel Malleus is setting too high of a bar, I have respect for his ability to always create the best prose, and I understand his reason to oppose, because it's hard for many of us to see through his lense.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everyone and thanks for your comments here, my talk page and my email. I will work on the redundancies in article. Thanks for your support. It is heartwarming to know so many people are eager to see me continue. I will report back when I am done with my scan. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Malleus

I have completed the c.e. and I am awaiting your comment. I gave the article to a linguistics Professor to read and he asked a lot of questions about it but I feel what I did was in vain: He was very impressed by it, just like everyone here, meaning that he might have not commented on what you like commented.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you would consider what you've done to be in vain, or even why I would be interested in the opinion of a linguistics professor on anything other than linguistics, but hey ho. I'll have another read through later, and hopefully I'll feel able to withdraw my oppose. Malleus Fatuorum 15:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Simple: It is peer review from a pro! And it is in vain because you are not interested in it! (You just said it.) Currently, my objective is to have you remove/take back your oppose. Anything time-taking attempt failing to help is, from scientific point of view, in vain. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk)

What I'm not interested in is any more of your bollocks. My oppose stands, no matter what your tame linguistics professor thinks, and I will not be revisiting this nomination. Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a few things I'm not happy with. Would you like to know what they are, or would you prefer to continue with your sulk? I'm easy either way. Malleus Fatuorum 16:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I once said: Awaiting you comment. Do you really want me to clarify? ;) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've said many things that you ought not to have said. Do you want me to clarify? Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Malleus. It was a pleasure to have you onboard. You are welcome to return any time. Have a nice day. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support- This really should have been promoted last time.Greg Heffley 21:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is of good length and quality, with an appropriate structure that's easy to follow. Further I can see improvements made since the last nomination, which I would've thought should have been promoted as a FA given the issues raised in the last nomination have been addressed. --Damaster98 (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ at this time. It's clear a lot of work has gone into this article, but it still falls short of FA quality on several points.

WP:MOS issues, particularly overlinking – for example, you link Windows 8 twice in as many sentences.
Multiple inconsistencies in reference formatting. Compare for example FNs 50 and 51, or 55 and 56, or 22 and 63
What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
Some copy-editing needed for grammar, clarity and flow. Examples: "PC Magazine successfully installed" - no, the author of the review installed it; "shown the ability to eliminate all widespread malware" - unclear whether you mean malware that is widespread within the system or common worldwide; "Later on 15 September, Windows 8 developers blog confirmed" - grammar. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nikkimaria

Fixed by Malleus
Fixed by Malleus
Everything-Microsoft is written by Robert Boland, whose reputation is established. As for Softpedia, there is a general consensus in Wikipedia that it is reliable. Per my own experience, its editorial board far outperforms that of CNET in terms of accuracy and thoroughness. (CNET doesn't really have an editorial board; it is just Seth Rosenblatt, whose work is at best sloppy.)
You pointed to multiple issues:
- "Successfully" is needed because it is about beta software. It was requested during peer review in the first FAC nomination (if I am not mistaken).
  I don't believe that Nikkimaria was objecting to the word "successfully", but to the fact that it was Neil Rubenking of PC Magazine who installed the software, not PC Magazine. Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  I think you may be right. In that case, Fixed by Malleus. Codename Lisa (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This sentence is in the lead; lead is bound to be less detailed because it is summary. But an English speaking person knows that a "widespread", "prevalent" or "epidemic" micro-organism is one that has global prevalence.
  I think Nikkimaria has a point, so I changed that to "widely encountered". Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Hmmm... you think "widely encountered in the system" or "widely encountered worldwide" is no longer the question? Maybe we should opt "globally prevalent" to be on the safe side. Codename Lisa (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't think there's the same potential ambiguity with "widely encountered" as there is with "widespread" in this context, and I don't think that "globally prevalent" is synonymous with widespread. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  I'll bear that in mind. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is much closer than it was, there's just a few things still to be fixed. First, and most importantly, I don't have enough information to verify the reliability of the two sources I flagged above. If Boland's reputation is established, could you take pity on a non-software person and give me a clear way of verifying that? Same with Softpedia – do you have a link to a project page or WP:RSN discussion where it was determined that this source is reliable? Second, I'm still seeing quite a few inconsistencies in citation formatting. For example, compare current FNs 18 and 49 - both are to Ars Technica, but one treats it as a magazine and the other as a website. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nikkimaria. Citations problem in your example seems to have been solved, thanks to Malleus.

As for the reliability issue that you have mentioned, Softpedia seems to have strong support. WP:RSN have addressed Softpedia in a couple of instances. The consensus is that since everyone can post software on Softpedia, download description pages are definitely not reliable sources. However, this is not the case with reviews. You may be specifically interested in this discussion which establishes that not everything has a Softpedia review. (That is indeed the case.) Other than that, Opera (software), a featured article uses Softpedia as a source. (Other GA software articles also use it but I though you may not want a list here.) Generally speaking, since Softpedia is a commonly used source in Wikipedia, it can be concluded that there is a consensus that its point of view has due weight.

The case of Robert Boland, however, is different. Admittedly, it is a self-published source whose reliability is tied only to its contents and author. I am afraid besides my own computer experience, the only review that the source has received is the first FAC of this article. I can submit my certificates if needed; but we can always delete the source, no problem. There are other sources that say the same thing.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lisa. Boland can be used as an SPS if you have some concrete way of demonstrating here the author's expertise/qualifications in the topic area. If not, you may have to remove it. Other than that, the only remaining issue are some lingering citation glitches. To give you some further examples, AV-TEST is italicized in FN 52 but not 53, FN68 capitalizes "Blog" while 64 does not, and Ars Technica is wikilinked in FN18 and 36 but not 49 (should be on first, all, or no occurrences, as you prefer). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through all the citations, and I think they're all consistent now. Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Boland's source is gone. By the way, I have fixed all instances of "Boland" in this page; a Firefox auto-correct add-on have been changing it to "Borland". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support if Awards is either merged to Reviews section or (preferably) removed at all. Given low-profile awards, the separate section is not warranted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article is not even a good article. A good deal of problems are caused very recently but that is not a good excuse:
1. (Fixed) Grammar: "an antivirus software"; it is either "antivirus software", "an antivirus program/utility/product/package/offering" ot "the antivirus software"; do I need to elaborate on their meaning?
  All instances of this should have been fixed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Looks like fixed but I think "antivirus software product" is redundant; antivirus is better
2. Images have no alt texts at all. Hint: Restore them. See WP:ALT.
  All images have alt text. Malleus Fatuorum 12:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Not good enough; an Alt text must help the blind understand (through a screenreader that reads Alt texts) what people blessed with sight understand by seeing the image. "Screen dump" is not good enough. Fleet Command (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Alt text, of any kind, is not required for FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  
  You completely misunderstand the purpose of alt text Fleet Command. I'll give you a clue; what do you think "alt" is short for? Malleus Fatuorum 14:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  This was plainly the right move. Alt text must adequately portray what is depicted in the image for those who cannot view it. In the case of dialogue boxes that means including the text therein unless there is an extremely good reason not to. More a cluestick moment than an FAR failer, considering how easy it is to revert, but important to address pre-promotion so as to ensure this is carried out in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  As I say, you completely fail to understand the purpose of alt text. And as it's not required by the FA criteria there's no point in you banging on about it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. (Fixed) Bad category: Category:Anti-virus software
  Which of the FA criteria speak to categories? Malleus Fatuorum 12:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Fixed when unifying the hyphenation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  @Chris: Thanks. @Malleus: It is a GA quickfail (FA articles must meet GA criteria too). I had a couple of GA experiences in the past. Fleet Command (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  It is by no stretch of the imagination a GA quickfail, and I say that as someone with considerably more than "a couple of GA experiences". Malleus Fatuorum 13:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. (Fixed) Source problem: Some statements have lost source; some had a reliable source in the past but now have a personal blog as a source. e.g. MSMPENG. I do understand that some Wikipedians, for no good reason, think that all primary sources are evil. I understand but I don't condone. No excuse can justify the replacement of one Microsoft engineer with the original researches of some random blogger.
  Can you provide some examples? Malleus Fatuorum 12:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Appears to refer to a temporary glitch where, when swapping a less-than-great Polish source for a slightly better English one, I accidentally removed the adjacent microsoft.com reference. Already fixed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Example 1: MSMPENG. Neither sources mention "Microsoft Malware Protection Engine". The new source only says that MsMpEng.exe is "AntiMalware Service Executable". The former needs a source. The new source is also written by some random blogger. It is not comparable with a Microsoft Engineer.
  
  Example 2: "It lacks the personal firewall [~snip~] found in OneCare or Forefront Endpoint Protection (FEP)." Perhaps I should have included in grammar section instead of a failure of verification but anyway; does FEP really have a ~~personal~~ firewall? Correct me if I am wrong: It does not. Fleet Command (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  
  "Personal firewall" changed to "firewall". Malleus Fatuorum 14:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  And makes you think FEP has firewall? Fleet Command (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Hello, Fleet Command. I changed to "personal firewall of OneCare" and "centralized management features of FEP". Is it okay? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  
  That needs reworked. It's somewhat unnecessary exposition anyway, so in the worst case both references can simply be removed. For the MSMPENG thing, the issue is that the new source supports the "common core" statement rather than the "expanded name" one, but the references are adjacent to one another. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. MOS:LEAD — Lead contains undue details. It is no longer a summary but a biased selection of parts of the article.
  Can you provide some examples? Malleus Fatuorum 12:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Example: Codename Morro, network inspection system and Windows 8 incompatibility are not mentioned in the lead but "Microsoft ForeFront Protection", an independent product is mentioned in the lead. What is this? Advert? I am not saying "include the former and remove the latter" but I am saying: look at the disparity of importance. Fleet Command (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't feel there's undue weight, as Forefront Protection is highly related.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. (Fixed) Cohesive elements are lost. In a brilliant prose, cohesion is needed, i.e. reader must have no trouble understanding why all of sudden the next sentence says something entirely different.
  Can you provide some examples? Malleus Fatuorum 12:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Use of the extremely tacky acronyms "MSE" and "AV". Acronyms can do magic when used properly but can ruin the prose if used improperly. Therefore, only some of the very popular acronyms should be used.
  The product has a long and unwieldy name, and there are only so many ways one can talk about a subject without using its name. Use of a common abbreviation (used in multiple sources) is an acceptable solution. Only "MSE" (the subject's name) and "AV" (antivirus, a word with no common synonyms which is used repeatedly here by necessity) are abbreviated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  I am familiar with this type of discussion: People in video game articles always try to make an acronym out of the game's name, e.g. use a lot of CCGZH for Command and Conquer: Generals: Zero Hour because the phrase video game is "too long"; but the general consensus is against this. Fleet Command (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Mechanically substituting every instance of the subject's name for some generic description is not unequivocally better than using a common initialism. I've no experience of your own example (though personally I'd just use "Zero Hour"), but multiple sources included in this one do indeed use the "MSE" abbreviation. It is not an invention of the article's authors. As for using "AV" instead of "antivirus" in the dozens of places that it's used, that significantly improved the article's flow in some cases (particularly where forced to use the word more than once in one sentence) while avoiding the problem of whether to hyphenate "antivirus". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Some paragraphs do not have topic sentences. All paragraphs must have at least three sentences, including a topic sentence. Long sentences can be regarded as two or three, subject to the demand of the situation.
  Can you provide some examples? Malleus Fatuorum 12:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Article stability is lost: A massive unnecessary change in hyphenation has taken place, changing the article from variation of English to another. This is a complete violation of MOS:STABILITY. Both "antivirus" and "anti-virus" are correct; only the one that was originally used should have been retained.
  Article stability does not depend on minor issues such as hyphenation, which is consistent and correct. Malleus Fatuorum 12:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. (Fixed) See also section contain "Microsoft Forefront" which also appears on Navbox. This instance is redundant.
  I think a good case can be made for including Microsoft Forefront in the See also section, as nobody looks at Navboxes. Malleus Fatuorum 12:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  In the lead, See also and navbox? And let's not forget that the only reason it was put there is that some user wanted to mention Sybari in the article, as is evident by the talk page and the edit summary. Irrelevant. Fleet Command (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  The product in question is a sister product to this one, and its absence from the article body was inappropriate (navboxes are supplemental to see also sections, not replacements). The talk page only indicates that the original insertion was unsourced. However, the perfect is the enemy of the good, and it is better to include the link and then work on incorporating it better post-FA than to exclude it entirely simply to avoid getting a black mark at FAR. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Looking at this further, there's room for improvement here. It's discussed in the body, but only tangentially. On the other hand, the see also section is aenemic, and I still think this is a good fit unless there's a rapid improvement in the article's coverage of Forefront while the FAR is still open. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Hello, Fleet Command. For the time being, I removed the link since it is no big loss and a good compromise. But as WP:SEEALSO says, "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." Therefore, I think FAC is not the appropriate place to push one editorial judgment, especially in absence of consensus. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet Command (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support as issues seem to have been properly fixed. Reviews and awards have been combined, categories are fine, use of MSE acronym is fine and preferable to clumsily spelling out the entire name each time. Grammar issue above doesn't exist, so I will assume someone else fixed that. All and all, it is a much more refined and readable version of the article than existed previously. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:25, 18 September 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.