Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Android operating system versions/archive1

List of Android operating system versions

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 think it is a FL

Thanks, Greg Heffley 01:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Is this the renamed "Android version history" article that I reviewed a few days ago? If so you need to check out the renaming process because the earlier name still exists. Brianboulton (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new one.Greg Heffley 13:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I think it has some way to go before it would pass at FLC; here are some suggestions for improvement.

The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD - to start with, one paragraph seems a bit thin for an article of this size.
The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However Since April 2009, each Android version has been developed under a codename based on a dessert item. and The pre-release versions of Android were dubbed Astro and Bender, but these names could not ultimately be used for trademark reasons.[1] do not appear in the body of the article.
My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there is no mention of the beta version that I could see.
In fact the first sentence seems to be contradicted in the body of the article - the lead starts with The version history of the Android operating system began with the release of Android 1.0 in September 2008. but the first section of the article is on the Beta version released in November 2007. The lead also mentions two pre-release versions, but only one seems to be mentioned here.
The first sentence also seems to me not to follow WP:LEAD - specifically WP:BEGINNING which says in part The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject.
I am also concerned about a lack of references in places - for example the 2.2.3, 2.3.6, 2.3.7, 3.2.1, and 3.2.2 sections do not have refs and need them. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
The refs are not consistently formatted - for example, Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Make sure the refs used meet WP:RS
Article has WP:OVERLINKING issues
Avoid needless repetition - for example Update to Android Market with automatic updates and easier-to-read Terms and Condition text is followed by the same information Update to Android Market app, allowing it to update on its own
I also question the level of detail in places - what makes easier-to-read Terms and Condition text encyclopedic (as opposed to cruft)? This is probably a WP:NOT issue too
I really expected there to be some more history - why was Android developed? Who was on the development team? What other software (Apple?) led to the decision to develop Android?
Or what were usage / sales figues for or critical repsonses to the different versions - what led the team to develop the next version?
The article has to meet WP:WIAFL - so many bullet lists does not seem to meet "professional standards of writing"
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]