Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/IPad (3rd generation)/archive1

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 10:24, 8 April 2012 [1].

IPad (3rd generation)[edit]

Nominator(s): Zach Vega (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that the article gives a great overview of the tablet, and is ready for Featured article status. Zach Vega (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The lead is written almost entirely in jargon. OK for buffs, not OK for a general encyclopedia's readership. Can you rephrase in a rather more reader-friendly manner? Brianboulton (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added links to some of the lesser-known terms. Further explanations are in the article's non-lead text. Zach Vega (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you may, please specify the specific information you want us to clarified or 'de-jargonise'. To us "tech buffs", most if not all the content in the article can be understood with ease so it's quite difficult for us to identity the content that needs clarification. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 05:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've only really looked at the lead, but I suspect that the article has been written with the wrong readership in mind. Many non-technical people are interested in iPads and what they can do, and they will be rather put off by the first two paragraphs of the lead. We expect the article to contain technical information, but the lead should be rather more welcoming and general, and should not read like the specifications section of a manual. What is a Retina display? Is the "theoretical bandwidth" issue really worthy of inclusion in the lead? Should I have to use links repeatedly to find out what the technical terms mean? What does "It shipped with..." mean (sounds like commercial jargon)? Likewise the second paragraph is written in techspeak: "There are eighteen different variations of the new iPad, including combinations of black or white glass panels, storage capacities of 16, 32, or 64 GB, and connectivity options of Wi-Fi only, Wi-Fi + 4G LTE on Verizon, or Wi-Fi + 4G LTE on AT&T, Telus, Rogers, or Bell." You use both "3rd generation" and "third generation" in the text – be consistent, stick to one. Ruhrfisch, below, has raised other points about the inadequacy of the lead and other parts of the article, so I think there's a fair amount of work that needs doing. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Ruhrfisch. I closed the peer review for the bot (as article cannot be on PR and FAC at the same time), then read the lead and history section and looked at the rest of the article. This does not meet the Featured Article criteria. The criteria include 1b, which requires that the article be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" but the History section starts with the announcement of the press conference to announce the release of the new iPad and does not even include the release date. There is a timeline later, but no real discussion of the context and history (no real discussion of the earlier iPads or when the decision was made to develop this new version, etc.) Since the iPad 3 was released less than a month ago, I also have general comprehensiveness concerns. For example, Consumer Reports is quoted once on the overheating issue, but their followup report is not mentioned here and their decision to give it their highest recommendation is not mentioned at all see here. According to criterion 2a the article "...follows the style guidelines, including the provision of— (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections". This lead does not mention either the little history that is in the article or the timeline or the critical reception. There are other issues, but I do not see this as ready for FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Jim. I only read the lead, full of jargon, much of which wasn't linked to existing articles or explained in any way. Also, I can't see that the lead section summarises the article as a whole, it's all specs.Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I think it's way too soon to have it on FAC since it's only been out for a month. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it too soon? The only thing in the article that is unstable at this point are sales numbers. Zach Vega (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping a note - Further critical reviews will also be important to add, especially when comparing this product to the next iPad (assuming there'll be one). Ruby 2010/2013 06:22, 8 April 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.