There should be more information on the phone's features. Any other notable features of the phone's software? Currently, it mainly covers the specifications of the phone (coverage of the phone's audio would be nice). The reception section could incorporate more breadth of critics.
For the most part. However, there are no references indicating that the phone has been heavily criticized for being a clone of the iPhone 6. Also, covering HTC's denial of copying the iPhone next to it could give it undue parity.
I will put this on hold for 10 days; the issues above are significant.
Specific issues
Development
The internal specifications of the phone was revealed through the AnTuTu benchmark test. – The source states that the results were unofficial, and that "it might be best to take it with a grain of salt." May be worth rewording.
Many websites and business websites says that HTC planned to launch the Hero product in October 2015. The only product launched by HTC on October was the A9.
Ayub407talk06:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)reply
HTC has committed to provide software updates for the unlocked variant of the phone within 15 days after the software update for the Nexus devices. – Explain. I'm guessing this means within 15 days after initial release by Google; if it is, then it should state that.
Can be expanded. Instead of solely covering seemingly-random critic's reviews of the phone, summarize the many opinions on the phone and give examples from the most prominent critics.
Most critics have different opinion of the phone. Not sure how to summarize it. Also, Engadget is prominent when it comes to smartphones reviewing.
Ayub407talk07:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)reply
References
1: From its title alone, "Trusted Reviews" is a dubious work; probably not RS.
As of
this diff. Since most of these sources' publishers are obscure or not known for accuracy/factchecking, many of these will depend on the authors' credentials and reputation.
I will pass this article if and only if the sources in the fourth section are replaced or can be proven reliable. The sources in the third section support statements that aren't challenged or likely to be challenged, but still are unreliable; many unjustified sources there will fail this article.
For AndroidPolice (reference 2), the discussion states that the website is unreliable for video games reviews as the staff are not dedicated to it. The website in question here only support the statement of the article "it was officially announced on October 20, 2015". Moreover, the discussion was under the scope of videogames wikiproject and it does not state that the website unreliable for android devices.
Ayub407talk06:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure which part of the fourth section (reception) you are talking about to change the source. But, I have changed the reference 30 & 31 to a more reliable source.
Ayub407talk17:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)reply
It is still far from passing criterion 3a; it still seems like a Start or C-class article in terms of comprehensiveness. See
Wikipedia:Good articles/Engineering and technology, under "Hardware, standards and protocols"; and see also similar articles such as
HTC Dream and
HTC One (M7) – they place their subject in context and do not leave a reader with important questions on them. Specific comments:
HTC's financial struggle has been discussed considerably in sources; some context would be useful.
The software section is deficient. There are about four short paragraphs discussing the phone's software, only some actually discussing the phone's key software features.
The hardware section is fine.
The development section needs significant expansion; incorporate more information that gives context to the history and development of the phone.
There should be more information on the phone's features. Any other notable features of the phone's software? Currently, it mainly covers the specifications of the phone (coverage of the phone's audio would be nice). The reception section could incorporate more breadth of critics.
For the most part. However, there are no references indicating that the phone has been heavily criticized for being a clone of the iPhone 6. Also, covering HTC's denial of copying the iPhone next to it could give it undue parity.
I will put this on hold for 10 days; the issues above are significant.
Specific issues
Development
The internal specifications of the phone was revealed through the AnTuTu benchmark test. – The source states that the results were unofficial, and that "it might be best to take it with a grain of salt." May be worth rewording.
Many websites and business websites says that HTC planned to launch the Hero product in October 2015. The only product launched by HTC on October was the A9.
Ayub407talk06:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)reply
HTC has committed to provide software updates for the unlocked variant of the phone within 15 days after the software update for the Nexus devices. – Explain. I'm guessing this means within 15 days after initial release by Google; if it is, then it should state that.
Can be expanded. Instead of solely covering seemingly-random critic's reviews of the phone, summarize the many opinions on the phone and give examples from the most prominent critics.
Most critics have different opinion of the phone. Not sure how to summarize it. Also, Engadget is prominent when it comes to smartphones reviewing.
Ayub407talk07:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)reply
References
1: From its title alone, "Trusted Reviews" is a dubious work; probably not RS.
As of
this diff. Since most of these sources' publishers are obscure or not known for accuracy/factchecking, many of these will depend on the authors' credentials and reputation.
I will pass this article if and only if the sources in the fourth section are replaced or can be proven reliable. The sources in the third section support statements that aren't challenged or likely to be challenged, but still are unreliable; many unjustified sources there will fail this article.
For AndroidPolice (reference 2), the discussion states that the website is unreliable for video games reviews as the staff are not dedicated to it. The website in question here only support the statement of the article "it was officially announced on October 20, 2015". Moreover, the discussion was under the scope of videogames wikiproject and it does not state that the website unreliable for android devices.
Ayub407talk06:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure which part of the fourth section (reception) you are talking about to change the source. But, I have changed the reference 30 & 31 to a more reliable source.
Ayub407talk17:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)reply
It is still far from passing criterion 3a; it still seems like a Start or C-class article in terms of comprehensiveness. See
Wikipedia:Good articles/Engineering and technology, under "Hardware, standards and protocols"; and see also similar articles such as
HTC Dream and
HTC One (M7) – they place their subject in context and do not leave a reader with important questions on them. Specific comments:
HTC's financial struggle has been discussed considerably in sources; some context would be useful.
The software section is deficient. There are about four short paragraphs discussing the phone's software, only some actually discussing the phone's key software features.
The hardware section is fine.
The development section needs significant expansion; incorporate more information that gives context to the history and development of the phone.