Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/IPad (3rd generation)/archive2

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 19:03, 14 July 2012 [1].

IPad (3rd generation) edit

Nominator(s): Obtund^Talk 16:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting this article up for FA because previously it was attempted but came short because it was just way to soon. They attempted for it seven days after getting GA, which was way to early. I believe it is the right time now. Obtund^Talk 16:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but this article falls well short of the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns raised in the previous FAC went well beyond the timing of the nomination (which isn't really an issue: it's quite normal for articles to be nominated for FA status shortly after passing a GA nomination, and this is unremarkable if the quality is OK), and these don't appear to have been addressed: The first paragraph is largely technical jargon and the history section remains lacking, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working - I will copyedit fix that jargon. Obtund^Talk 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains some North American centric wording (for instance, "Fall 2012" is Spring here in the Southern Hemisphere) Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well how do we fix that, just write (in northern hemisphere)? Obtund^Talk 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Changed it from "Fall 2012" → "3rd Quarter 2012." There were two instances of this. Obtund^Talk 21:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't flow very well - for instance, the 'Hardware' section starts with a description of the system's physical buttons. Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix that, I didn't notice it. Obtund^Talk 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just an example of a much broader problem Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really I don't see an issue. Obtund^Talk 02:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article also isn't up to date: for instance, Apple lost the court case in Australia and was fined $2 million, but this isn't mentioned. The 'Commercial reception' section is focused mainly on the initial reception to this system, and not its overall commercial performance. Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that. Obtund^Talk 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Obtund^Talk 21:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just an example of a much broader problem. The text you've added continues the article's North American-centric bias by the way: the Australia court system obviously doesn't operate in $US. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed - My error changed from USD → AUD. Obtund^Talk 23:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the news story used to reference this labeled a 'press release'? Nick-D (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - Changed it from press release to news. Obtund^Talk 02:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It was announced on June 11, 2012, at WWDC 2012, that with the update of iOS, iOS 6.0, Siri will now be available on the New iPad in Fall 2012." - what 'WWDC 2012' and 'Siri' are aren't explained. Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded - Doesn't need it because Siri is linked here, and WWDC 2012 doesn't need to be explained. Obtund^Talk 21:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on both counts, I'm afraid. I don't have a clue what 'WWDC 2012' is. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Added a link. Obtund^Talk 23:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only material on battery life is that "Apple claims that the battery can provide up to 10 hours of video, 140 hours of audio playback, or one month on standby" - manufacturers' claims about battery life are notoriously unreliable/unrealistic, so an independent assessment is needed. Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We will have someone to do that.Obtund^Talk 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be added found link - [[2]] - the guy says it was eight hours. Obtund^Talk 02:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Added Link --Obtund^Talk 16:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the relevance of the InMobi survey? Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know I didn't want it but people wanted to put it in I guess. Obtund^Talk 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it shows the commercial reception in the public. Obtund^Talk 23:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. It's what appears to be a low-quality survey (sample size of only 689) which produced highly questionable results (I really doubt that 29% of all people with mobile phones in whatever the population the survey claims to cover are really going to buy an iPad). This isn't a replacement for actual sales figures. Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed - Obtund^Talk 02:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted the formatting you placed around my comments: as you can see from the list of nominations at WP:FAC, this is not how editors' comments are handled. Please also remove the symbols from your posts above. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the symbols. Obtund^Talk 23:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you just re-added the ticks, and placed them at the start of my points? This implies that I think that these comments have been addressed, which is certainly not the case. Please remove them, and take the time to review some of the many FACs open at the moment to see how reviewers comments are handled. Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was for my reference, my error. Obtund^Talk 02:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.