Talk:Apple TV/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: GoAnimateFan199Pro (talk · contribs) 08:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Good article review for Apple TV - see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Right, here we go:

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The article prose is easy to understand. No spelling or grammar issues that I know of, however one portion of the specs section lacks a space when it needs one. This is easily fixable so I will pass it.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: (previously )

   Anything in particular that caused the Fail rating is bolded. Anything with a strike over the words (e.g. errpr) means that the issue it addresses has been resolved. As follows:

   The lead section lists, from my observations: the device and what it is, its capabilities, basic requirements to get the device working, how to control it, and a small selection of streaming services available. Good coverage, does not exceed or break requirements, so that's a pass (although I would recommend adding sales of the device as an additional fourth paragraph).

   In layout, the article accompanies most of the recommended elements in the Manual of Style.

   For words to watch, the article did not have any tone of bias that I noticed, and none of the words listed in the MoS are listed in the contents of the article with the exception of quotes. It has no contentious labels, unsupported attributions, or expressions of doubt that I know of, however terms linked to editorializing, such as "but", "however", "though" and "although" have been found. However these are small imperfections by my book, I give it a pass. On a side note, I would suggest fixes for the inclusion of "revealed" in the sales sections. What I cannot pass is the inclusion of relative time references that can easily go out of date ("recently", "current", "to date", "in the future", "now", "since"); because of that I have to give this category an immediate fail. One suggestion I would make is to replace "since the release of" with "after the release of". I also suggest the replacement of "which is often a goal" with a better suiting sentence.

   Writing about fiction is not relevant to this article so this subpage will not be counted in the review.

   Embedded lists: the use of correct prose is frequent, and inclusion of lists is minimal, and includes the "children" elements listed in the subpage. Tables are used only in the specs section and that is perfectly fine. The information is not uncomfortable to read and does not need to be split. Bulleted and numbered lists are used appropriately. This is a pass.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   I have pretty much no suspicion about the sources used.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: (previously )

   The copyvio detector lists one source as 64.5% possible plagiarism, from igotoffer. I cannot determine whether or not the information is copied, or if it is, should be kept. Assistance would benefit, thanks. The copyvio detector, after a second skim, lists 51% confidence which is a good reduction. I'll pass it.

   Hi thanks for reviewing. I addressed nearly all of the issues above. I got the copyright down to 51% plagiarism per Earwig's Copyright detector. You can review all my changes to the Apple TV article that I made today and tell me what you think of them. Thank you JC7V-constructive zone 20:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

   Thank you for taking the time to review the article and adjust as needed. GoAnimateFan199Pro (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

   I'll now continue:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The article does not go off-topic on its coverage. Pass.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   The article is neutral as of the time that I am reviewing it. As I mentioned earlier, no tone of bias or anything similar. I pass it.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No labeled reverts after July 7th, and no notice of an edit war after the latest 200 edits. I give it a pass.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   In the infobox, the product logo, and a clean image of the device itself, are used. This is perfectly suited for the article. All other images below the infobox suit the topic well and do not seem to violate any copyrights.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   After a noticeable amount of servicing on the article, it looks like it's good for promotion. This article passes!