Wikipedia:Peer review/IPhone/archive1

IPhone

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking at improving it for a GAN later this year.

Thanks, mono 22:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H1nkles

Unfortunately I do not have the time to do a full review. I'll provide a few overarching thoughts that you can take or leave as you see fit.

I count at least 7 non-free images. This I think is excessive. You should consider replacing with suitable images from Commons or removing some of the images altogether.
It's a fairly long article at 111,000kb. The 100,000kb threshold is a bit arbitrary but it's a good goal to shoot for. Without doing a full readthrough I couldn't tell if there is unnecessarily detailed information in the article. So instead I'll just encourage you to look critically at the content, decide if it is need to know or nice to know. Always keep the need to know information and decide what nice to know information should alse be included. Suggestion would be to break off some of the more detailed information into main articles with a summary in the iPhone article. Keep summary style in mind when editing.
Watch out for a lot of technical jargon. Most readers are not going to be uber-knowledgeable about IT phrases and acronyms. Since this is an article about a piece of technology that is owned by millions of people it will be very imporant to keep the information as easy to read and understand by a computer novice as possible. Also don't just rely on wikilinking to do the explanations for you. If a reader has to continually break away from the article to look up technical words the article loses a lot of readability. There's a balance here of course, you can't dumb everything down, but where you can and still keep the article flow moving along, you should.
Try to avoide one and two sentence paragraphs. Combine these or expand them. It's generally poor form to have a lot of stub paragraphs in an article.
The infobox in the lead seems very long, is all the information necessary? Do articles on other phones have all that detail?
There appear to be several dead links in the references/external links sections. See [1] here for more details.
Refs 27, 28, 66 aren't formatted correctly, refs 5, 89, 96, 98, 99, has no title, publisher or accessdate. Several refs either don't have accessdate or publisher.
As far as credible references go, it's best to steer clear of blogs. They are almost always opinion-based with no pressure to be you know, accurate. So in the pantheon of sources, blogs will be at the lowest end of the credibility scale.

I hope that helps give some thoughts for you to work on. Unfortunately I don't have time to read the article and do a full review. I wish I did because I love my iPhone and I'd like to learn more about it. Best of luck to you, getting it to GA quality is absolutely attainable and a worthy goal. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 23:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I agree with everything User:H1nkles says above, and I have just a couple of other thoughts.

The quality of the prose is high, and the article is certainly broad in coverage and possibly comprehensive.
You'll need to address the concerns expressed by the "split" tag and the smaller tag in the "SIM unlocking" section.
Although the article seems well-sourced, I did not check the individual sources. I did notice that even though many sources are cited, a few paragraphs are unsourced. It's good to provide a source for each paragraph as well as every set of statistics, every direct quote, and every claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned.
There's some overlinking. For example, one sentence in the lead says, "These apps have diverse functionalities, including games, reference, GPS navigation, social networking, and advertising for television shows, films, and celebrities." I would not link anything in this sentence except GPS navigation. Most readers of English will already know the meaning of the other words, whether they are computer-literate or phone-literate or not. Further down, I would not link "glass" or "fingerprint", and so on. In addition, I'd reduce the number of times particular words are linked. For example, I would not link Internet more than once or Wi-Fi again and again. Each link requires judgment, so it's hard to give a general formula. I would just suggest eliminating distracting links of little value.
Images should fit entirely inside the section they relate to and should not overlap section boundaries or displace heads, subheads, or edit buttons, or create text sandwiches between two images. I see quite a few violations of these guidelines in this article. WP:MOS#Images has details.

Hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]