Talk:iPad (1st generation)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 10:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the article, i am unsure regarding teh following points:

1. I am uncomfortable with this sentence "The iPad can be charged by a standalone power adapter ("wall charger") also used for iPods and iPhones; a 10 W charger is included."  Done
2. Not sure about this sentence "The media noted the positive response from fans of the device, with thousands of people queued on the first day of sale in a number of countries."  Done
3. Is "tech press" suitable for an encyclopedia article?  Done
4. Not sure about NPOV of critical reception section

Most of what was written in that section is filled with direct quotes from publications, so I really don't know how to improve that section and make it appear more neutral. Suggestions? YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 11:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Article put ON HOLD until improvements are made. Will be failed after seven days. Retrolord (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the NPOV issue, my concern was not the NPOV of the sources themselves, but whether the sources given in the article accurately reflected broader consensus regarding the iPad. Retrolord (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to address this concern due to the varying nature of critical reception. For the laptop killer claim, it's quite clear that most publications reached the same conclusion. However for other claims especially criticisms, different sources noted different aspects that they disliked and it's quite common for criticisms to be heterogeneous, as different publications utilise different testing methods and may have had different expectations for the iPad. I personally believe it's acceptable to include sources that disagree on different aspects without a need for a general consensus as long as a valid reason is provided, however others may disagree with this approach. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 04:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• As a passer-by comment, who in "The iPad can be charged with a 10 W standalone power adapter, which is often referred to as a "wall charger" and is also compatible with iPods and iPhones." calls it a "wall charger" (what justifies "often")? On a minor note, "Apple re-entered the mobile-computing markets"→"Apple re-entered the mobile computing market" (remove the hyphen and the s).--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Well Apple officially calls their chargers "power adapters", however from experience many often refer to it as a wall charger. I know this constitutes OR, but I didn't think it would be much of an issue. If it's inappropriate I'll remove it. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This brings up the issue of WP:V's "verifiability, not truth." I would not find this optimal in a GA without good reason.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll remove the statement, removing it probably benefits the wording anyways. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There are several unreferenced claims in the infobox. Would it be possible for you to reference some more of them? I dont feel comfortable with it in its current form. Retrolord (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Since the infobox is part of the lead and most of the parameters include information that can be found on the official spec page as well as the body of the article, I thought we should keep the amount of references in there to a minimum as per WP:LEAD. Though either way should be fine in my opinion as it doesn't look too cluttered and might be beneficial to people who need the spec page. Anyways, I sourced most of it accordingly. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 09:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, i've just got a few more queries about the article before I pass it;

• </ref name="AppleIPadSpecs"> Could you fix that, im unsure of how you intended it to look  Done
• The iPad can be charged with a 10 W standalone power adapter, which is also compatible with iPods and iPhones. Could you please reference this?  Done
• In the iOS 4.3 update, released with the iPad 2, a setting was added to allow the user to specify whether the side switch was used for rotation lock or mute. Does this need to be in the article? Wouldnt it violate criteria 3b as it is unneccessary detail?

I removed the clause about the update being released with the iPad 2, however the remaining part of the statement provides readers with information on the functions of that button. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 10:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• The iPad's internal codename was K48, which was revealed in the court case surrounding leaking of iPad information before launch. Is this neccessary to the article? Criteria 3b for this one aswell

Personally information as such does interest me, however I agree that it may be considered unnecessary to others. Though since that claim is well referenced with a mainstream source, its removal may be quite subjective. The NY Times, which is cited for that claim believed that it was of interest to others and as the statement is quite short, it doesn't really do much harm to the article. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 10:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• which is a security and bug-fix update, do we need this additional detail on what the update contained? Do the sources provided substantiate the claim it was a security update? This comes under criteria 3b and 2

{[done}} The statement about the type of software update 5.1.1 is classified as has been removed. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 10:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! I have passed your article! Retrolord (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the two iPad articles! Cheers. :) YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 11:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)