Talk:IOS 9/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ProgrammingGeek (talk · contribs) 17:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

I intend to start ASAP. Thanks, ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 17:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, so, I do have some issues with the flow of the article. It's broken down into sections for each individual iOS update and each default app. While this isn't a problem (in fact; it practically guarantees a pass for #3) and I can't see anything in the MoS that discourages it, I just think that there could be more prose in each section. Otherwise, consolidate the sections, because there's not a whole lot of justification for a subsection with five words. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 17:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hi @ProgrammingGeek: Thank you for providing feedback. It would be very helpful if you could give concrete examples. I actually went looking for "a subsection with five words" until I understood it may be an exaggeration intended to illustrate a point. I fully understand your thoughts regarding prose, flow and consolidation, and would be happy to look at any applicable sections. Based on my own observations just now, I can see that the iCloud, iBooks, Wallet, Health, and Messages subsections contain very little information in each of them. On one hand, easy table-of-contents to go directly to individual apps, but on the other hand, improved prose by combining. I'm not sure how I would combine those, so I would have to ask for some guidance if those are the ones you also found. Otherwise this may just be me rambling, but back to my point: I'd love some examples/more information. :) LocalNet (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I have an issue with the History section, namely the very small sections for each update of iOS 9. I really don't think it's necessary to have it the way it is. Lots of high-quality articles for software use tables for version histories, which is something you should probably do here, seeing as there's very little to say for each update. You can always have a "Notes" or "Changes" column in the table to retain the information on each version. An alternative course of action would be to leave that information for the article iOS version history, where these changes are already described in much greater detail. Or, perhaps you could copy some of the information from that article into this article, to better justify those headers.

It appears that excessive headers are a problem elsewhere in the article, too. For starters, with so many headers, it may be a good idea to alphabetize the sub-sections under "System features" and "App features". I would look to articles like Windows 10 for how you can potentially consolidate sections under common subjects to create larger, fuller sections with better readability.BruzerFox 02:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just letting you know, iOS 10 has been promoted to GA status and it does not do this -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• I wasn't saying it's necessarily a condition to qualify for GA, just that it may be a worthy improvement. BruzerFox 15:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The iOS10 "review" was questionable anyway.. there wasn't even a review as such, nor a single comment/suggestion, so it's hardly comparable. For the record, I happen to agree with BruzerFox's comments above and feel that this needs to be looked at. ProgrammingGeek should not be reviewing these articles anyway, as I have said in the past, and the lack of followup feedback to LocalNet's comment is disappointing. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.