Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/IPhone 5S/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 10:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

IPhone 5S

[edit]

IPhone 5S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Zach Vega (talk to me)

I am nominating this for feature d article because the article has been through extensive work in a short amount of time. I'm not entirely sure what FA completely entails, so I want to see what standard the article has to be held up to in order to obtain this status. Zach Vega (talk to me) 23:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Given that the phone has only been commercially available for a couple of weeks this nomination seems rather premature - it's not likely that the article will be stable in its current state. For instance, the 'Commercial reception' section only covers the first few days of sales, which is a not-very-meaningful measure, and new reviews of the device are becoming available. Historically, problems with the iPhones (in terms of technology, software and/or Apple's ability to meet demand) have also generally emerged a few weeks after the phone's release. Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. FA candidates should be stable; it's hard to see how this can be true for a new product (see preceding comment). It's also hard to see how we can have collected enough reliable assessments of this product - considered opinion takes time to develop - so I think there are reliability concerns too. RomanSpa (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zach, I think there's a difference between "reviews" and "considered opinion". For example, both Madame Butterfly and the Rite of Spring both experienced dreadful early reviews, whereas more considered assessments of these works have tended to be very positive. Hugh Walpole was generally well-reviewed in his early career, but the balance of considered opinion would now probably not rate him particularly highly. For ephemera like mobile phones, the time taken to form "considered opinion" is probably not as long as for important artistic works, of course, but I don't think that a few weeks is enough. There needs to be time for the initial enthusiasm (or reactive spasm of distaste) to abate. RomanSpa (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and recommend withdrawal (02:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)). Given that the 5S has been released for barely a week, I consider this FAC to be quite premature. As Nick-D have said, issues have historically emerged after several weeks of release. I suggest the nom postpone this FAC for three to four weeks. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—giving this article some time to stabilize would bring more information such as commercial performance, long term reception and perhaps information on iOS 7 updates. Right now, the article only covers a "recentist" post-release analysis of the smartphone. Indeed as it is, it is a very strong article but only covers details on the phone's performance just shortly after release. With time, it will flourish into a more complete contribution with an overall conclusion/afterthought, which it lacks at the moment. The Wikipedian Penguin 13:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was somewhat expecting that overall response. However, pretending that the article is stable, would it be suitable for FA status? Zach Vega (talk to me) 16:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think the biggest problem is stability, but that the article falls short of the featured article criterion 1b: "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". It isn't like it is highly unlikely that there will be any more information on the iPhone 5S; in fact, it is too probable that there will soon enough be more to cover on this device to initiate a FAC nomination at this point. The article feels too incomplete right now. Give it at least a month (two would be even better), by which it should be more well-rounded.
In the meantime, the refs could be more consistent (Apple vs Apple Inc, italicization of magazines, websites, etc.) and some sources are questionable (eg. Bloomberg, invasivecode, Facebook, Appleinsider). The Wikipedian Penguin 17:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Since you've asked whether it is suitable for FA status apart from its stability:

  • You have a photographer of somebody who reviewed it for a newspaper, but not the guy who designed it.
  • Also the major chunk is taken up by iOS7, but that has its own article. Take care to stay on track here.
  • "The iPhone 5S, stylized iPhone 5s"--I don't get this. The phone's name is the former, but Apple consistently writes it as the latter? Then how do you know that the name isn't the latter?
  • What is the difference with the 5C? Just a plastic case? Then maybe both articles should be merged as "iPhone 5S and 5C"?
  • Woah that is a long infobox. That connectivity tab is especially detailed and unreadable, although the tabs before it rather long too. Remember this is just a general encyclopedia article about the phone, we don't want every last tech spec here.
  • The writing on the whole: try not to be too detailed. Avoid long list of items like "The iPhone 5S can play music, movies, television shows, ebooks, audiobooks, and podcasts and can sort its media library by songs, artists, albums, videos, playlists, genres, composers, podcasts, audiobooks, and compilations."--besides, every iPhone (and smartphone?) ever could do those things. I really don't thing it's worth mentioning any more.—indopug (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose based on " the most major update" Never mind the puffery, the grammar's a real issue there. I probably have a COI as I just bought one and had to do a follow-up visit to the Apple Store :( and two hours online with a tech and still haven't gotten everything straightened out. Also struck, on a quick glance, the "weekend of release" stat with the 5c. Surely although the two phones were announced together, the 5c came out a week earlier?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly it should be in quotes then, because it does not accord with the English language as I understand it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks worth including: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/10/the-iphone-5s-motion-sensors-are-totally-screwed-up/ There are also lots of stories floating around about some people being unhappy with various aspects of IOS7, and especially its messaging software though this may not be a worthwhile topic to cover in this particular article. Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/IPhone_5S/archive1&oldid=1136097203"