Talk:IPhone 11 Pro/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aza24 (talk · contribs) 22:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be taking a look at your article. In order to be super thorough, I may give specific feedback somewhat slowly, throughout the next couple of days. But this is only to make sure there is no doubt that your article meets the good criteria! Aza24 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Taewangkorea: Below I left some initial comments, I need your responses to most of them in order to look at some sections more specifically. I apologize for the delay, irl issues have gotten in the way.

Lead

Suggestions based on checking out the leads of other iPhone articles that are rated "good" status: (iPhone 5 and iPhone 4S specifically)

What you have in the lead so far looks really good, the main issue I have found is the stuff you don't have in the lead, as in, in needs some expansion.

After what you have so far, consider summarizing the initial sales and public reception in a good paragraph,

Similar to the size of the paragraphs already there. Similar to the last paragraphs in the leads of iPhone 5 and iPhone 4S, consider summarizing the differences between 11 Pro/11 Pro Max against the iPhone 11. And then concluding with what IOS iPhone 11 supports as of now. Aza24 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History

Given that this is a relatively new product, the length of the history section makes sense, as there quite literally isn't much history since the release.

Consider splitting up the first line into two sentences, the current sentence is quite long.

Official release event invites sent out to press featured layered colored glass elements organized to form the Apple logo... this line doesn't really make sense to me, the "layered colored glass elements part especially specifically." Additionally, you could perhaps consider splitting up this rather lengthy line as well? Aza24 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider adding a short section on "Production" with the costs and comparisons to the cost of maybe the iPhone 11, like the section in the iPhone 5 article. (Under production) What do you think about this idea? Aza24 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Design

This section is super solid. Aza24 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specifications

Hardware

It seems like you're only listing the hardware changes of this phone, rather than the hardware specifications, is this the case? Because otherwise I could expect to see things about the microphone, speaker or charging. Aza24 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Display

This section looks good. Aza24 (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camera

Can some of the sources be me spread out in the first paragraph? Aza24 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any differences or specifications about the back camera you could put? Aza24 (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Software

Same as the camera section, can the sources be more spread out? Aza24 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

What about reception in terms of sales? Aza24 (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Known issues

Is this really the only known issue? The phone has been out for almost half a year now, I feel like there might be more out there.

References

References seem good for now, I'll take a closer look at them further down the GA process.

General

This article seems too short in general. While the iphone is a newer one, most of the sections could use expansion. Especially the history and reception sections.
Please consider adding a production section.
Could use 2 or 3 more images for sure.
Can you attribute any of the design changes to specific people? A lot of the other iPhones talk about the "new display by John Smith"

Note: Please add a succession box like the one below:

Preceded by iPhone 4	iPhone 4S 5th generation	Succeeded by iPhone 5

GA criteria

After 20+ days with no response from the nominator, I have no choice but to fail this.

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:
· · ·