Talk:IPhone 5s/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tortle (talk · contribs) 05:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The lead section needs to be more concise before I continue. Please leave a message and ping me here when the changes are made. Tortle (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The length of the lead section is, in my opinion, justified in this case. Per WP:LEADLENGTH, an article of this size should generally have a lead section of two to three paragraphs. Although the current lead section has four paragraphs, since the fourth paragraph is not directly about the device itself, but rather about information about its successor, it can be excluded from the lead length requirements. In short, I do not think that changes have to be made. --sovereign°sentinel alt 07:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the second paragraph can be shortened and the fifth removed or combined into the fourth. But back to the second paragraph, it is too redundant as listing the specs is too much for a lead section especially when they are listed in the infobox and the specs section sovereign°sentinel alt. Tortle (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The lead section has four paragraphs, not five. Concerning the second paragraph, the specifications presented are in a prose format unlike the infobox, and they are major features of the device. I would say that it should be kept. --sovereign°sentinel alt 07:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, sovereign°sentinel alt if one other user has an issue with my request (who didnt nominate this and didnt work hard on improving this article) I will either remove the request and approve this or I will call another reviewer in depending on the second argument presented. Tortle (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This will need another reviewer, since the original one was prepared to approve the nomination if the lead section issues could be settled. A quick look through finds other issues, such as the Problem subsection near the end, where the second sentence as written doesn't make sense. The prose criteria include "clear and concise", which means that sentences like this must be identified by the reviewer as problematic and then corrected by the nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: reviewer has withdrawn at WT:GAN; placing back into reviewing pool for new reviewer, retaining seniority. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)