Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/IPad (3rd generation)/archive3

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 15:44, 15 September 2012 [1].

IPad (3rd generation)

Nominator(s): Obtund^Talk 02:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it has the status, and was just recently copyedited a few days ago. Obtund^Talk 02:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find the sales information after the initial release insufficient. What happened with the sales in the 6 months since its release? How about sales abroad? Nergaal (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: There are still inconsistencies in the prose and sourcing. A few examples and points:

First two sentences of the article start the same way. Likewise the first two sections of History.
A WP:MOSNUM problem is the inconsistency "3rd" vs "third". Pick one and stick to it.
Redundancies such as: "which also provides a platform for audio-visual media"; "Apple offers nine different variations of the third-generation iPad".
The uses of "also" are all redundant and removing them would not change the meaning or flow.
"For the rest of the world" could be condensed to "elsewhere", likewise "not available" to "unavailable".
"Speculation about the product began shortly after the release of the iPad 2, which improved the camera and added the new dual-core Apple A5X processor. " – The iPad 2 did not improve the camera, Apple did.
Information in the lead does not require citations if the info is presented further down in the article.
"During this time, the tablet was called the 'iPad 3'" – when exactly was this? No dates specified of the leaks and the iPad 2's release, so it's a bit unclear.
The four citations after "The company did not predisclose the subject of the event, but it was widely expected to be a new version of the iPad." is a bit overkill. Bundling them together would be a good idea.
WP:WEASEL word here, "people say the battery lasts about 8 hours doing normal tasks". Please be specific.
I question the reliability of some sources like this and this. There are a lot of unreliable blog sites cited.

I didn't have a thorough look, but concerns such as these worry me. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 13:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending resolution of sourcing concerns. In addition to the issues raised above, I also note multiple inconsistencies in the formatting of sources, and the use of iFixit (which is a wiki and so not a reliable source). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 9 September 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.