Talk:Opera Mini

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Opera Mini was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: February 29, 2008
This article is within the scope of the Opera Browser WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Opera Browser. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
A summary of this article appears in Opera (web browser).

Contents

[edit] Market Share

Can we get some numbers here on Opera's

the cell phone browser market? Mathiastck 16:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I read on http://my.opera.com/community/ (in the news section)a week ago or so that Mini is used by 8 million people, regulary, but i can't seem to found that text right now. 84.217.101.102 20:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Opera 1Q07 presentation (http://www.opera.com/company/investors/finance/2007/1Q07_presentation.pdf) cumulative numer of users ("downloaded and used Opera Mini" (presumably at least once)) were 15 million and the cumulative number of downloaded pages were 5.2 billion. 213.112.15.125 00:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final Version?

From the "History" section

On November 28, the final version of Opera Mini 3 was released.

The "final" version? Right on the right-hand side, it says Latest release: 3.02 (build 6540) / December 15, 2006.

Seems like a silly, unnecessary statement. Maybe it means the non-beta version, or something like that? Then "Opera Mini 3 emerged from beta on November 28" seems better. 209.195.77.59 01:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"Final" obviously means "non-beta", like with all other software. -Ritarri 08:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Functionality illustrated

It might make sense to change the image depicting the functionality in the "Functionality illustrated" section to this newer and more professional looking image on the Opera Mini site: http://www.operamini.com/images/server2.gif

There is some accompanying text that could serve as a caption as well on the features page: http://www.operamini.com/features/ Op12 17:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The FAQ section of operamini.com has the following flow illustration that might look better. http://www.operamini.com/images/mini_route.gif The "secure site" needs to be replaced though. 213.112.15.125 00:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement

I am sorry to say this but this page reads like an advertisement. The language is almost marketing-like. I suggest that some passages are rewritten to accomodate for this. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect information in article

From the History section:

In Overview mode, the user can scroll a zoomed out version of certain web pages. This feature is not yet available on BlackBerries and some other devices.[15]

Overview is supported on Blackberries, but not landscape mode. Search the referenced page for * to find that piece of information.

// Lunkwill @ Opera 88.131.66.80 (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)



The page states the Sony Ericsson K610i comes preinstalled with Opera Mini, it does not. I had to install the software myself (I have updated the firmware/OS to the latest version). —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenSharp (talk • contribs) 10:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


The Functionality section is a bit misleading with the diagram. Opera Mini doesn't need to use GPRS. It works with whatever TCP/IP carrier is available from the Java environment in the device. It can connect either with a persistent TCP/IP connection or by tunneling that binary data over HTTP requests to pass through more restricted networks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.20.116 (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you know of any sources that explain this? —Remember the dot (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

1.Prose- Fail. Potential Wikipedia:Embedded list issue. Most critically, layout issues in that there is many short paragraphs and short sections which Wikipedia:Layout guidelines frown on.

2. Verifiable- Need to fix the citation needed tag.

3. Coverage- Fail. I feel that the some aspects of the product aren't talked about. What are the names of some of its developers? How much money did the product gross? I'd be interested in the companies relationship with distribution partners and network operators. Maybe expanding some short sections could meet this requirement too.

4. Neutral- Check

5. Stable- Check

6. Images- Fail or check with someone with more copyright experience. The pictures of wikipedia on the browser shots might still be protected by copyright laws by the inclusion of some of the browser in the picture. If that's the case, the number of such images that can be used in any article is usually restricted. I'm not sure on this so may someone could check.

As always, feel free to write on this talk page with questions for me. If you meet the criteria I've listed, feel free to renominate the article and I'll try to review the article promptly. Good luck!User:calbear22 (talk) 06:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • It would be extremely unwieldly to reformat the lists as prose.
  • The citation in question can be found in the "Market adoption" section. Citations given in the rest of the article do not need to be repeated in the lead. However, if it is important to you then we can repeat some of the references in the lead anyway.
  • I would like to expand the article, but am not sure how. If you could point me towards new sources that would be particularly helpful.
  • I was very careful to comply with the non-free content policy. Only 2 out of the 6 images used in this article are non-free, which is very good for an article about a non-free piece of software.
—Remember the dot (talk) 06:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I took the person who put the lead tag on at there word, which I shouldn't have. That's fine. Pictures are fine. The list requirement is something that is always mentioned in reviews with lists. I would not have failed this article on that account alone. The two shorter lists: Network operators and Awards might be more easily integrated. The sources look hard to find and I feel I can use a little discretion. But, I can't find anything in the Good Article Criteria that provides for difficulty in finding sources. The article doesn't need to be super expanded, but it needs to answer some big questions. See shortest FA articles for some general ideas about how to improve the article.User:calbear22 (talk) 08:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Your probably already know this, but Opera (web browser) was a featured article. There might be some ideas and information you can get from that article. Good luck.User:calbear22 (talk) 19:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)