Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mozilla Firefox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Mozilla Firefox[edit]

I just fixed up the writing for this a little, and I now think it would be a good featured article. It would be nice if we could feature it on the main page sometime soon, also. Andre (talk) 21:49, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. For NPOVs sake it should mention that Firefox too has been found to have some serious security bugs (albeit in beta). (added some myself) Also Microsoft's thoughts on the browser should be reflected (I don't think they've commented a lot on it, but the Australian manager said something to the effect that they did not consider it a threat to IE shortly after its release). The SeaMonkey codename is used unnecessarily in a few places. Possibly its relation to the Camino project should be expanded slightly (right now it says only that Camino is not XUL based. Camino developers feel that XUL doesn't allow them to give the proper look-and-feel for the Mac platform.) Quite a few people have referred to Firefox (in a positive sense) as a "Trojan horse" of Open Source. This point of view should be mentioned. David Remahl 22:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The article does not go into detail on any of the features of Firefox. Compare to the featured article on Emacs, which has lots of detail on the interface, customization, internals, etc., all of which this article seems to be lacking. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:51, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Changed my vote to Support in light of the recent changes to the article. I think the "Delicious delicacies" section is still too prominent, but whatever. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 04:35, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Currently a large chunk of the article is taken up with the version table and market adoption. Very little is on the subject of features etc. --enceladus 01:09, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've tried addressing these concerns. How's it doing? Andre (talk) 02:28, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • As stated above, the Emacs article is a good example of a software article. At the moment the features is just a list. Maybe some product comparisons with Opera and IE.--Enceladus 02:33, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • Also include what Mozilla App Suite features have been dropped / offloaded to extensions. — David Remahl 02:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Object. The features section needs some serious expansion first. It's getting there, though. Zerbey 16:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I can't really expand the features section to the degree that Emacs has - Emacs is a far more complex program than Firefox. Andre (talk) 22:31, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
      • Object. As someone who was intimately involved in Mozillazine until recently, I've drastically expanded the features. There are a few holes, notably in the references (and the lack of a proper mention of Mozillazine), so I cannot support this article yet, but it's definitely getting there. I've also added a few caveats in Firefox's features — a quick run through Bugzilla should yield several more notable ones we can include. Johnleemk | Talk 12:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Decent article, the table's great, but 1) Not quite NPOV. I know that Firefox is the bees knees, but the article seems a little too sympathetic. Surely the browser must have weaknesses and critics? Aren't there any Opera / Konqueror fans who can find fault? For example, IE gets hammered in the lead section; M$'s response appears tucked away at the end of the article; the "Features" section seems to be a list followed by a paragraph of how Firefox is better than other browsers. 2) More screenshots would be useful 3) "it has been referred to as a gateway drug or a Trojan horse for the adoption of open source software. — OK, by who? And is it a common enough assessment to warrant placing in the first paragraph? — Matt 11:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) — Matt 14:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I appear to have found at least one reference to Firefox being a 'gateway drug' of open source software:, the student newspaper of New York University. Personally I don't think it should be included in the lead section but maybe it should be rewritten to something like "Mozilla Firefox is often a computer users first experience with open source software"--Enceladus 20:36, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not to nag, but, is this article far along enough yet for all you objectors? Andre (talk) 19:16, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The noteworthy issues section needs NPOVing and possible renaming. Norman Rogers 22:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • What's POV about it, and what's wrong with the name? Andre (talk) 05:08, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • I must concur with Andre; what's wrong with it? Does it provide too brief a view of Firefox's weaknesses, or is it too anti-Firefox-ish for your tastes? As a Firefox fan, I can say that more than few of those things mentioned do piss me off, and I can assure you that people do frequently complain about them on the Mozillazine forums. Johnleemk | Talk 11:46, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I now find said section NPOV enough to support. Norman Rogers 01:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Give an objective overview of Firefox, e.g. history, known issues, etc minghong ( talk) 07:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Best Browser and also a very good article. --ThomasK 11:37, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support This article has really improved over the last few days. I certainly think it is a good article, and is quite NPOV to me, why over-report on Firefox vulnerabilities? If there aren't many, no need to dedicate huge portions of the article to it. Khlo 22:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs work on structure; some information is presented in seemingly arbitrary order. That's the only real problem I can think of, though. Fredrik | talk 23:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Several people (as far as I can tell) have been working on modifying the structure. I think it's better now. Might need some polishing ..? Merged it with Delicious Delicacies, too. :-) Don't know if it was the right decision or not, but it was a decision, anyway.
    • My objection has been addressed. Support. Fredrik | talk 19:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support This article is quantitative and neutral as well as an excellent introduction to the software. LadyAphelion| 1:54, 22 Nov 2004 (EST)
  • Object It's riddled with advocacy. If the article were moved to, say, Why Firefox is a much better browser than Internet Explorer then I'd support it for featured staus. It needs some careful attention to tone, to balance, and to selection of things to include/exclude. Tannin 07:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Added later) Much improved now, but still not an article of any particular quality. Competent, detailed, but not outstanding. Tannin 11:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Thorough, neutral, and much improved. αγδεε(τ) 10:40, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a nice article, and Wikipedia should be proud to spread information about high-quality alternatives to dominant commercial products. --VerdLanco 18:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Has improved substantially in the past couple of days. CheekyMonkey 20:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The article looks great, has enough information. --Toomin 07:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This article has improved a lot over the last couple of months and I feel it's now ready for the prime time. --RichCorb 20:15, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is well-written, well-organized, and informative. It is a great model for all Wikipedia articles. --C. Duben 00:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fantastic article. Has length problems though - it'd be nice to see it broken down in summary style. Ambi 01:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Can't ignore the fact that it is one of the most popular pieces of free software of our time and the article therefore deserves a place on the front page. --Chrisblore 18:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I'll admit I found this article because it was linked to from, but as a Wikipedian I do think this article is good. However, beware of sock puppets who may vote for this article. Alex Krupp 00:53, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)