Talk:iPad/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Overall, a good start, but I'm not convinced it meets good article criteria at this time.

• Lead does not adequately summarize the article. In scholarly writing, a paragraph pretty much has to be at least three sentences (topic, supporting, concluding). The fact that parts of the lead aren't complete suggests there is ample room for expansion (the game goes for other quasi-paragraphs throughout the article.)

The only remaining quasi-paragraph is the one in the sales section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the lead appears to have been done now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Prose:
  • I think the article needs a rewrite with accessibility in mind. We're not all Apple/software fans (well, I am, but not all readers are going to be) and they are going to need clarification on terms (not just wikilinks) to understand the article. "Apple re-entered the mobile-computing market in 2007 with the iPhone. Smaller than the iPad but featuring a camera and mobile phone, it pioneered the multitouch interface of iOS"→what is multitouch? What is iOS? "The Wi-Fi version of the iPad went on sale in the United States on April 3, 2010.[4][28] The Wi-Fi + 3G version was released on April 30." Wi-Fi might be common enough, but 3G? Why the + sign? We don't have to parrot Apple's marketing style. "The touchscreen is a 25 cm (9.7 in) liquid crystal display (1024 × 768 pixels, 132 ppi, XGA) with fingerprint–resistant and scratch-resistant glass."→What touchscreen? Whose touchscreen? Hasn't been mentioned at this point. I could go on, but I hope you see my point. "Dumb it down" a bit.

Partially done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done plus changed to 'and', 3G is explained a bit in the lead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• • "Three days later, at the 52nd Grammy Awards, Stephen Colbert used an iPad in announcing the nominees." is that really that important?

 Done Its gone. 20:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• • "The iPad has no ports for wired connectivity." False and misleading. If you want to say it doesn't have ethernet, say it.

 Done, though there are three hanging sentences in that paragraph which isn't allowed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Merged into a single paragraph. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• • "Dual speakers housed inside the iPad provide mono sound via two small sealed channels in the interior speaker assembly that direct the sound outwards toward the three audio ports carved into the bottom-right of the unit." Periods are cheap. Split up into two sentences.

 Done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• • "Source[10]"→What exactly is this sourcing? Everything in the tech specs not specifically sourced? It's confusing.

 Done I've inlined the sourcing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• • "Digital rights advocates, including the Free Software Foundation, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and computer engineer and activist Brewster Kahle, have criticized the iPad for its digital rights restrictions, which forbids users from installing software unless it has been approved by Apple." I'm not comfortable with this section, which starts off with criticism of Apple's system, and we have no idea what that system is. Reorganizing and elaborating on the iPad's DRM before comments is essential.

 Done I've reordered the content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• • The article needs a stiff copyedit. There are lots of places where the prose stumbles over itself; there are many clearer ways of saying similar things in less words. "Like other iOS Devices, the iPad is able to be "jailbroken"→can be, "Jailbreaking, according to Apple, voids Apple's warranty on the device.", et al.

These two have been fixed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Do we really need a dedicated subsection to "Censorship" when there's only a paragraph of content? You can still wikilink to the relevant article.
  • Tense isssues: "CNET and Gizmodo have listed features"→they listed them, it's already happened.

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• • This article smacks of recentism in its structure and reporting; we don't need blow-by-blow accounts, we want to be looking back as best as possible.
  • I'm not satisfied with the Reception section. On one hand, I think the fundamentals are there, but there needs to be A) more comments from a wide variety of reputable sources (I count only 5 critics for the opening subsection), and B) a stronger distinguishing between "reaction" and actual "reception" (on launch). I think "Product Name" and "International Launch" should be folded into their parent headings and expanded, as well.
    • I know there's been a discussion about it on the talk page, but the paragraph on Foxconn suicides is still irrelevant; the only aspect that might be worth keeping is Apple's pledge to give proceeds to workers, and that should go in "Manufacture". It's irrelevant to the piece of hardware itself.

As discussed on the main talk page.  Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Shouldn't "Manufacture" be in the "Hardware" section?

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Images look okay, but someone should be able to go and make a better infobox image than the very dark File:IPad-02.jpg.

 Done I've found a better infobox image on Flickr. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't like new image because it is in the case, which misrepresents the hardware, and does not show the home screen, the most neutral, default setting. I was also put off that you didn't change the caption to reflect the new image. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 14:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Damn, sorry about missing the caption. I see your point. There are a bunch of other possible images on Flickr to pick, but I'm happy to see what the reviewer has to say on it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• References:
  • What makes the following references reliable: Gizmodo, nexus404.com, ifixit, Laptopspedia, Ustream, China Post, Mac Observer

Partially done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• • References need to be fully and properly formatted, with templates since that's the primary method used in this article. There are lots of errors and unfilled fields.

 Done I've done the best I can, can you point out any specifically that I've missed? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• • I'm concerned about the lack of citations in some points. Things like "Most third-party iPad applications also support these four orientations.", "The Wi-Fi + 3G model has a black plastic accent on top to improve 3G radio sensitivity.", "The built-in Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR interface supports the HSP, A2DP, and HID profiles, which allow wireless headphones and keyboards to be used with the iPad. However, the iOS does not currently support the OBEX file transfer protocol.", etc. are not common knowledge.

Partially done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am putting the article on hold for now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the detailed review. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Some questions/comments on the above

• @Reliable sources, Gizmodo is one of the top tech blogs along with Engadget and CNet and China Post is one of the English language Taiwanese newspapers mentioned in the Rough Guide so that would be reliable as well (though if we remove the Foxconn stuff the latter argument is redundant) - I accept your point on the others. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• @3G, what other terminology can you use to describe it that isn't more technical than that? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Explain what 3G is. Readers should be able to understand the gist of what's discussed in an article without having to link away to another article; from a usability standpoint, that's a bad practice, and they're unlikely to come back to finish reading. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It lets you download data onto your mobile phone at a reasonable speed EDIT: I see your point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• @Censorship Section, I've made it a level 4 heading, I'm not convinced how it will look without a heading at all - though you're welcome to have a play and see what you think. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

References still to tidy up

12, 13, 26, 41, 42, 45. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Do you think you've addressed all the above? If so, I'll do another pass. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had time to give the article a full read-through yet, but over the weekend I should find time. After that I guess the "reaction to the international launch" section is still weak but another read-through is probably a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 01:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've given the article another read-through, apart from the reaction to the international launch section I believe everything above has been addressed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to look over it either today or tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Of note the international launch section has been improved too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, it's looking loads better, but there are still some tweaks and stuff that need to be made. First off, refs go after punctuation, like so, and not like this. All the latter examples in the article should be formatted correctly. The one-line "Forrester Research has argued ..." could probably be cut, as it doesn't seem that important and it's unlikely you can craft a real paragraph around it. I'm still not thrilled with the reception layout. I think the article could take a page from video game articles (say, for example, Halo 3: ODST, in that release and sales are covered in a separate section, and then critical reviews are mentioned (this format is also used by most film articles.) It's disjointed to go from critics to product names to critics to international launch and response to it; cutting out the subsections and reordering for flow would make it read a heck of a lot better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  I've been though the whole article and I only found one reference not after punctuation (though admittedly it was in the lead). I'll look at the reception section over the next couple of days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  I believe I've fixed these issues by re-ordering the content and moving the "release" stuff from history down to a new "release" section with the sales data. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it looks better (at the least GA quality, I think.) I'm passing the article; thanks for your work. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)