Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/IPod/archive3

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:52, 24 February 2007.

iPod edit

FAC 1 - FAC 2
Self nomination. Is this article of featured standard? --IE 20:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a better nomination than that! We have addressed the issue of vendor lock in here, which was a main rejection the first time around. The article is comprehensive while still maintaining a healthy 45k length, and has more than sufficient sources and is illustrated with free images.--Here T oHelp 20:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per the immediate above post.--Here T oHelp 20:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Refs need work. Sometimes the dates in parentheses, sometimes not; NYT presumably stands for New York Times, not everyone will know what it stands for; publishers are sometimes before and sometimes afterwards; full dates should be wikilinked in all cases. Trebor 21:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better now? Check the article. --IE 22:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better but not quite there. At a glance, #38 and #39 don't have any source info, #35 doesn't have a publication date, and there's inconsistency with full stops and commas before retrieval dates. Trebor 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:DASH, WP:MOS; too many to fix myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS says that em dash can have a space on either side, or not. I don't see what's wrong with the current style used, but I might change it to em dash with no space on either side. --IE 11:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed a few more references. There are probably still a few left that have some missing info. --IE 11:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on fair use, but the claim that the "Made for iPod" logo is critically discussed in the article seems suspect; it's given a passing mention at best. Trebor 17:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we could probably delete that image and all mention of it. --IE 19:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 1. The ToC is vey heavy. I suggest you clear some subsections out by merging with parent section. 2. Images width too wide, especially for smaller resolutions. Suggest you don't set a default pixel width and allow it to resize according to the thumnail specs specified by the user in special:preferences. 3. =Sales= needs a global, not US perspective. 4. =Models= section too heavy move it to a dedicated article and add a bulleted list here with the images. 5. Image licences not specified for many of the images. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have tried to remedy this; tell me if you think it could be further reorganized and how. 2. I have removed that for all images except for those in the Models table, which must be small, and the sales graph, which I think should be rendered larger than the average image due to the information it carries. The later, though, is not essential. 3. Agreed, the text is U.S. centric, thought the graph is global. 4. I disagree. The models section is important in illustrating the historical information on iPods. A daughter article would contain only that section (table, graph, image, and two paragraphs of text); that, I think, is too small. The table succinctly summarizes the important points that would be hard to deduce from the text without it. 5. Precisely what images are you talking about?--Here T oHelp 14:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WRT #1, you can summarise 4.1 and 3.3.1 & 3.3.2 into the parent. #4, the table has superfluous data such as the exact date and cost. That can be moved to a dedicated article, and a 3-5 column summary table be used here instead. This table has simply too much data. I clicked on some random images like this: Image:IPod mini 2G.png, and it did not have an explicit licence. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to make the models table with a kind of "show/hide" thing (like with the ToC), so that readers can show or hide only parts of the table, instead of seeing the whole table all at once? For example, there could be a "show/hide" for each model - iPod, mini, nano, etc. Would this help with the models table being too big? I would prefer keeping the models table and the criticisms in one article. --IE 19:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Not that I know of. :( =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the TOC and image concerns.--Here T oHelp 00:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It could do with a lead infobox and less sections. "Operating system and firmware" could be merged with "iTunes Store" and "Additional features". Likewise "Connectivity" could be merged with "Accessories". And maybe "Criticisms" could be spilt into a separate article. Also I don't know if this is relevant to weather or not this is a FA but ask anyway. It mention the nano having "lyrics support" I've got a nano and I've no idea what that is. Buc 08:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding lyrics support: See http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302244 and http://www.apple.com/support/ipod101/tunes/2/

Oppose Way too big, is more based on the United States, needs to be global Flubeca 17:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with the size; prose is under 5000 words. I would prefer a globalisation of the sales (at the moment it seems to say "here's the U.S.", "here's the rest of the world") but aside from that I can't see much country-specific stuff. Trebor 17:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Image:Made for iPod logo.png is a fair use image that provides no value to the text. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the image, as I also can't see the value. Trebor 15:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the discussion on A-class to the talk page, as tangential to the FAC. Trebor 13:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My objection from the previous FAC last month - that the criticisms section does not mention vendor lock-in, the necessity for Itunes, etc - still has not been addressed. Raul654 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Criticism of the iTunes store/iPod lock-in is described already in the iTunes store section (and described in greater detail on the main article on that topic). I note that IE has already asked if you wanted this criticism moved to the criticism section, but your response seemed to suggest that wasn't the problem. Your problem is that the article does not mention that
  An Ipod without Itunes is effectively an expensive paperweight. It loses all its music functionality and becomes nothing more than a portable USB hard drive. If you do not want to use Itunes, or you have an unsupported OS, you are out of luck. That's what is meant by vendor lock in.
  This is completely wrong, as clarified in the article. Please read the article and then raise similar objections again if you are still of the same mind. --C S (Talk) 23:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the article editors: there is some sourced info on the matter in this article. Trebor 23:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be mainly about the iTunes store. I'd have to check if it's already covered in that article. Perhaps the iTunes store section could also be further expanded. --C S (Talk) 23:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look and iTunes store does mostly have this info. The Norwegian stuff is described in excruciating detail, but the Slattery lawsuit could be expanded. In any case, the iTunes store section in iPod is outdated and no longer a good summary of the main article, so it should be expanded. Note this appears to be quite different from Raul654's objections though, which I responded to above. --C S (Talk) 23:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.