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 not promoted 00:07, 17 May 2008.

Acid2[edit]

I've done quite a bit of work on this article, and I think that it provides a nice, well sourced, comprehensive discussion of the Acid2 test. I hope that it will be selected as a featured article and I welcome suggestions on how to improve it further. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

"versions these browsers are expected" - +'of'
I think the non-compliant applications section focuses too much on IE in comparison the amount of time spent discussing Gecko-based browsers. In fact there is almost no mention in the prose sections of the article of Firefox, Opera, etc.
"Lie challenged Microsoft to design Internet Explorer 7, then in development, to pass the test." I think that should probably be rephrased to something like 'challenged Microsoft to pass with the test with their under-developement Internet Explorer 7', unless he actually did challenge them to write a new version of IE that they hadn't already been planning to make anyway

-- Naerii 00:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The grammar is fixed. There are two reasons why IE gets so much coverage. First, the test was originally designed with Internet Explorer's pitiful standards support in mind. Second, Internet Explorer 8 passes the test...sort of. It takes extra space to explain the "sort of". If Microsoft decides to make IE8 pass properly for the final release, then this article's prose will be cut down quite a bit. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - all lists or tables, few information :-( --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 11:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree. The whole article consists of lists, tables, and other non-prose stuff. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What, exactly, do you want added to the prose? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 15:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a web developer who is familiar with the test suite, there isn't much else to add, although I can sympathize with those who look at the article and only see a bunch of stubby paragraphs, lists, and big tables. Gary King (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

What makes the following sources reliable?
Current ref 19 "Paul, Ryan A First look at ..." is lacking a publisher.
Same for current ref 20 Opera Mini 4
Same for current ref 21 Safari passes the Acid2 ...
Same for current ref 29 "K Desktop Enviropment..."
Same for current ref 30 The Acid2 Test
Same for current ref 32 KDE 3.5.2 Release Announcement.
Same for current ref 35 "Opera for Symbian passes ..."
http://www.princexml.com/samples/acid2/ deadlinked for me.
Current ref 37 is lacking last access date and publisher "Gecoko based browsers still fail..."
Current ref 28 is lacking publisher Welcome to Opera 9.0
Current ref 42 is lacking last access date. Take your browser on an ...
Current ref 43 also. Wii Browser Acid 2 Test
Current ref 44 is lacking a publisher Mozilla Labs blog

Being on the road, I didnt check external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1137799947&count=1 - weblog of Ian Hickson, the author of the test
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/index.html - weblog of the Apple Safari developers
http://weblog.timaltman.com/ - weblog of Tim Altman, an Opera Software developer
http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2007/06/opera-mini-4-beta - thanks for pointing this one out. There's undoubtedly a better source we could use. I'll look for one when I have time.
http://www.snailshell.de/blog/archives/2005/11/entry_22.html - weblog of Thomas Much, a web developer who took an interest in Acid2
http://www.kdedevelopers.org/blog/278 - weblog of the developers of KDE
http://diary.braniecki.net/ - weblog of Zbigniew Braniecki, a Mozilla developer.
http://sillydog.org/forum/sdt_11756.php - a stronger source would be nice but I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this one.
http://my.opera.com/welcome%20to%209/blog/show.dml/306342 - weblog of Thomas Ford, another Opera Software developer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGSBZUGOljw - no longer used in the article
http://suplido.com/joel/2007/06/15/take-your-browser-on-an-acid2-test/ - this source now just provides another, third-party witness to back up this page written by Daniel Goldman, a technical evangelist at the Opera Software company.

Finally, I've gone through the other references you mentioned correcting problems, and http://www.princexml.com/samples/acid2/ works fine for me. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now there are four more citations to back up and reinforce the Opera Mini paragraph. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, it's way too short and most of that is made up of lists. Sorry. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 20:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would really help if you would tell me what you'd like to see in the article, instead of just saying it's too short. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

First up, I don't have an issue with it being "full of lists" or whatever. Rtd, I suggest you raise this at WT:FAC if you are unsure.
re. the reliable source issues above, the SEO FAC is a good read.
"It was developed in the spirit of the Acid1 test, a relatively narrow test of Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) compliance." - perhaps move "the" and "test" on either side of Acid1; considering the name and the subsequent use of "test" it's fairly obvious what Acid1 is.
- Fixed. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"However, later on Microsoft joined other browser makers" - reword...perhaps start with "Microsoft later joined..."
"On 23 April 2005, Acid2 was updated to fix a bug" - no more detail on this?
- There's more detail now. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why all the whitespace around this image?
- Because I wanted all the screenshots for all the browsers to be the same size, and the easiest way to do that is to change the screen resolution to 800x600 (the smallest video resolution that I could use without going through a significant amount of trouble) and set the browser to full screen. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Changing font sizes, zoom level, applying user stylesheets, etc." - "etc." isn't really encyclopediac...if the list of ways to break the test is too length, just say "Actions such as changing font sizes..."
- Fixed. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"will not display an object element's content or its fallback content" - the wiktionary link seems irrelevant here (click it; nothing about computing).
- It does explain that fallback means "A backup plan or contingency strategy; an alternative which can be used if something goes wrong with the main plan; a recourse." I don't think that the word "fallback" is widely used, so a link to a dictionary definition seemed like a good idea. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"However, the prerelease version of Gecko 1.9 passes the test, and so future versions of these browsers are expected to pass the test." - could this do without the repeated use of "test"...reads poorly
- Done. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the listed external links could feasibly be used as references...they're not really doing much in that section.

dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Quite a few aspects of the subject are not addressed, or only addressed briefly. The lists in "Overview" and "Passing conditions" should be written as prose and explained. What does "CSS generated content" or "hovering effects" mean? The average reader needs an explanation. This should also have more info about how the test was developed and how it is performed. How accepted is it in the industry? A gallery is usually a sign of an article in development. Some images could be merged with the non-compliant applications section. Gimmetrow 19:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestions. Please go ahead and help implement them if you'd like, as I don't think I'll have enough time to work on them right away. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The gallery is there to illustrate just how poorly various browsers perform, and only major releases of browsers that were available when Acid2 was released or afterwards are included. A potentially larger gallery is available at Commons:Acid2. The images were originally included as thumbnails down the side of the article, but this was rather ugly and a side-by-side comparison using the <gallery> tag is much nicer-looking. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re:lists/charts -- in my view, this is not a strong objection unless you can explain why the information would better be presented as prose. For instance, in this article, the last large table and the list of compliant browsers look like good candidates for the type of presentation they currently use. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.