The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:24, 8 April 2012 [1].
IPad (3rd generation) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that the article gives a great overview of the tablet, and is ready for Featured article status. Zach Vega ( talk) 16:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment: The lead is written almost entirely in jargon. OK for buffs, not OK for a general encyclopedia's readership. Can you rephrase in a rather more reader-friendly manner?
Brianboulton (
talk)
18:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
reply
Oppose by Ruhrfisch. I closed the peer review for the bot (as article cannot be on PR and FAC at the same time), then read the lead and history section and looked at the rest of the article. This does not meet the Featured Article criteria. The criteria include 1b, which requires that the article be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" but the History section starts with the announcement of the press conference to announce the release of the new iPad and does not even include the release date. There is a timeline later, but no real discussion of the context and history (no real discussion of the earlier iPads or when the decision was made to develop this new version, etc.) Since the iPad 3 was released less than a month ago, I also have general comprehensiveness concerns. For example, Consumer Reports is quoted once on the overheating issue, but their followup report is not mentioned here and their decision to give it their highest recommendation is not mentioned at all see here. According to criterion 2a the article "...follows the style guidelines, including the provision of— (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections". This lead does not mention either the little history that is in the article or the timeline or the critical reception. There are other issues, but I do not see this as ready for FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose by Jim. I only read the lead, full of jargon, much of which wasn't linked to existing articles or explained in any way. Also, I can't see that the lead section summarises the article as a whole, it's all specs. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:24, 8 April 2012 [1].
IPad (3rd generation) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that the article gives a great overview of the tablet, and is ready for Featured article status. Zach Vega ( talk) 16:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment: The lead is written almost entirely in jargon. OK for buffs, not OK for a general encyclopedia's readership. Can you rephrase in a rather more reader-friendly manner?
Brianboulton (
talk)
18:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
reply
Oppose by Ruhrfisch. I closed the peer review for the bot (as article cannot be on PR and FAC at the same time), then read the lead and history section and looked at the rest of the article. This does not meet the Featured Article criteria. The criteria include 1b, which requires that the article be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" but the History section starts with the announcement of the press conference to announce the release of the new iPad and does not even include the release date. There is a timeline later, but no real discussion of the context and history (no real discussion of the earlier iPads or when the decision was made to develop this new version, etc.) Since the iPad 3 was released less than a month ago, I also have general comprehensiveness concerns. For example, Consumer Reports is quoted once on the overheating issue, but their followup report is not mentioned here and their decision to give it their highest recommendation is not mentioned at all see here. According to criterion 2a the article "...follows the style guidelines, including the provision of— (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections". This lead does not mention either the little history that is in the article or the timeline or the critical reception. There are other issues, but I do not see this as ready for FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose by Jim. I only read the lead, full of jargon, much of which wasn't linked to existing articles or explained in any way. Also, I can't see that the lead section summarises the article as a whole, it's all specs. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply