Wikipedia:Peer review/IPad (4th generation)/archive1

IPad (4th generation)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to get to GA standards and would like to see if any sections need fixing or expanding.

Thanks, YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 04:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from James086

• "designed, developed and marketed" - would "produced" be better? It seems logical that as the producer of the iPad Apple would do these things.
• "the new Apple A6X" - I would remove the "new" because it sounds like advertising and the chip won't remain new forever.
• The Retina Display isn't new to this model so I wouldn't bother mentioning it in the lead, just the Lightning connector and A6X
• The article switches between "fourth-generation" and "fourth generation".
• I would expect a newer device to outperform its predecessor, it's sort of a vague thing to say in the lead. Perhaps note that it's roughly twice as fast as the 3rd gen in CPU tasks.
• In History "before unveiling and introducing the fourth..." - just one of those words will do.
• In the second paragraph of History I don't believe this bit is necessary "which include several European, East Asian and North American countries". The infobox gives that information and it causes repetition of the word "countries" within the sentence.

According to other editors, most if not all information in the infobox should be mentioned in the prosed, I took that into account when I added that sentence. Perhaps it might be suitable to switch between "nations" and "countries", although nations does seem to pertain more to diplomacy. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib

Perhaps "across Europe, East Asia and the Americas"? James086^Talk 14:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• In Software "platform for iOS developed and maintained by Apple" - I don't think it needs to mention that it's maintained by Apple, it seems quite logical. If you feel it necessary perhaps just say "access the Apple App Store..."
• Perhaps note that the translation from speech to text takes place on Apple's servers (In the additional information) as the reason for requiring the internet connection.
• Refs 13, 26, 36, 49 and 51 will likely change as soon as a new model is released, can the information be found elsewhere? Alternatively the website could be archived so that the current version is always accessible.
• I have to go now but I'll return and keep reading through the article, likely tomorrow. James086^Talk 18:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• In hardware it mentions switches, I would have said buttons, but is there some reason for switches?
• Also I would have said it has 4 buttons and 1 switch: home, sleep/wake, vol up, vol down and the switch being the thing above the volume that varies. Even though the volume button has only one piece of plastic on top of it there are 2 buttons underneath I think.
• I wouldn't bother comparing it to the iPad 2 in weight, just the iPad 3. I'd suggest saying something like this instead "The WiFi only version weighs 652 grams while the cellular model weighs 662 grams, each are 2 grams heavier than their respective predecessor."
• The article says CPU but GPU and RAM are written out in full. It should stick to one or the other. The acronyms would be fine in this case because they are such commonly used abbreviations, but written in full is also fine.
• It should mention that the cost of parts is in USD
• "included 12 W USB power adapter and USB cord with a USB connector at one end and the new Lightning dock connector at the other end." - could be shortened to "USB power adapter and Lightning connector". It's just repeating the USB bit and it's not a Lightning dock.
• I don't think the source for the battery life is a reliable one. I'm sure battery life is tested in many reviews so it should be easy to find one with proper testing.
• The last 3 sentences of the hardware section are very short, I think they should be combined because it feels like a list and the shipping price isn't really relevant. Also USD.
• The sentence about the battery life of the iPad 2 is a bit confusing, perhaps just say "battery of the updated iPad 2 is able to..."

Comments - Based on the Good Article criteria, do you think this article would pass the review? I'm obviously bias towards it so my opinions on it are worthless. Lols YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks to be well on its way to becoming a good article. I won't review it for GA so that another set of eyes has a look first but I would pass it once these are changed (or not if there's a reason not to). Nice work. James086^Talk 14:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well that provided me with a great amount of confidence, I'll nominate it for GA if you don't have anymore recommendations. Anyways, thanks for the amazingly clear and thorough review! YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 03:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No other recommendations that I can think of. I'm sure there will be other minor changes suggested but that's all that I see. :) James086^Talk 12:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all the issues that you have raised except the referencing one. It's fine for now but if Apple does decide to change webpages, it shouldn't be too hard to find an archived version of the page on archive.com or cite another site with the specs. Anyways thanks! YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)