Talk:iPhone 5/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

One guess expressed as having made by many

Rectified - Sentence was reworded in way that is less suggestive YuMaNuMa ^Contrib

"with some media sources such as ExtremeTech suggesting that the damage on these unboxed device". ExtremeTech's columnist in his personal opinion suggested that. How was the claim "some media sources" suggesting that there's an agreement in the causality among multiple media sources? I reworded to say exactly what the source can support.

Also, some journalists decided to jump on the bandwagon to call whatever issues with adding the -gate suffix. The creative word game by a journalist or two doesn't define a word. The way it was phrased was certainly not proper. I took it out, but if someone wants to include it, it shouldn't sound so definitive. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, how about I cite some reputable sources and state that these are some of the publications that referred to the issue as "scuffgate"? By the way, why didn't you bring up these issues 2 weeks or so before the GA nomination and a reviewer commit himself to reviewing the article? YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 01:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I found that edit comment I left was adequate. I'm not obliged to bring up issues to fit around your convenience. We do our editing at our own pace. We don't need to seek each other's permission to make edits and this is rather trivial edit too. You don't own the article, nor do I. The current phrasing is more precise and I can live with it. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment after Cantaloupe edited the article without responding to my question

Can you please cooperate with me to resolve the issues in the article, despite my busy schedule I'm trying to resolve the problems by discussing them with you yet you repeatedly decide to ignore my messages. This has happened time and time again and led me to believe you decided to stop editing the article hence I nominated the article as I believe it was stable enough at that point, however after a reviewer committed himself to assessing the article, you popped up again and raised identical concerns to the ones we discussed weeks ago. I urge you to help me settle this issue for the sake of the readers of this article. I'm sick of this ongoing dispute and assume you are too. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

We've been through this before. Not getting responses as quick as you wish is hardly worthy an accusation of "ignoring". Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There is an obvious difference between ignoring and replying late and I have taken that into consideration when posting my previous message. There are still several comments in the sections above that have remained unaddressed, along with one in WP:RSN, which has now been archived. The comments I considered to be ignored are ones that did not receive a reply after either you edited the article or started new sections on other issues. It's also impolite to edit other articles while I'm waiting for a reply from you so we can resolve the issue, you have edited almost nonstop apart from your 4 day hiatus in late October, so you cannot really say you will reply when you have time. I also told you on my talk page to forward issues to other boards as I intend to nominate the article for a Good article review, however that was not done and issues remained unaddressed, you also failed to reply to my comments and stopped editing this page while continuing to edit other for the next two weeks, this led me to the reasonable conclusion of you abandoning your cause. Afterwards, I nominated the article for GA and shortly after a reviewer decided to assess this article, you started to alter content that was discussed in the talk page without addressing my comments, ultimately this reduces the stability of the article and usually leads to articles being failed as article stability is one of the criteria. You can see how this is a problem right? Also, if it's a trivial issue why are you so insistent in removing the content, the only reason why I'm so adamant in disputing this is because I don't want sourced content being removed without valid reasons, actual trivial issues such as your paraphrasing of sentences were generally ignored by me as long as content was retain and it made sense. Let's not get our egos on top of us and settle the dispute in a reasonable and timely manner. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 07:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information

Outstanding issue Will be considered stale after no reply in a month, user is still unresponsive despite attempts to contact him by three editors YuMaNuMa ^Contrib

Please cite relevant wikipedia policy which states the arbitrary expiration date you proposed. Nobody appointed you as a moderator to this article/discussion. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see the reply in the other section. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 00:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you (Tagremover) recently removed sourced content from the iPhone 5 article without an explanation in this edit. Can you explain why you removed content that was verified and supported by a reliable source? Thanks, by the way please don't see this message as threatening in any way, I'm just trying to understand why it was removed and whether such content should be included in similar articles in the future. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the information for now. Please initiate a discussion on the iPhone talk page if you believe there is an issue with the source. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Will do, don't know why I initiated the discussion on the user's talk page in this situation - probably thought he/she wasn't watching the page. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

YuMaNuMa, no worries! My commment above was taken out of context. It was originally meant to be a suggestion to Tagremover, but seems out of place after being moved to the iPhone 5 talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

SPAMMED, vague info from an unreliable blog

1. The editor is probably the second spammer for photographytalk i've found
2. He just writes one sentence as a reason to make his main action: SPAM for photographytalk
3. This info means nothing: ANY camera has noise!!! Also i MAINLY will remove this source, this sentence is NONSENSE.
4. The source is a blog-style page with infos from manufacturer, unclear other copied reviews and own opinions without giving any reasons or technical research, especially for this sentence: UNRELIABLE !

Best wishes, and find other sources with not so vague info, Tagremover (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I am trying my best to keep an open mind and understand the problem you have with the source. Can you be more specific by citing examples? I just re-read the review. It sounds like a typical review you'd come across at other reliable sources such as CNET. Remember, the information is in the Critical reception section of the article. There's nothing wrong with including a professional's opinion, as long as it isn't being given undue weight over opposing views. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best if the user took his claims to WP:RSN, from what I've seen, the user has been attempting to remove Photographytalk sources from numerous pages for several months now with some level of opposition. By taking the claim to RSN, he/she would be able to removed the source in question from more pages by simply citing the thread. I'm also quite curious as to why the reference is unreliable, although reliability isn't entirely based on reader/fan bases, the website seems to be quite popular and probably for a certain reason. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:IPhone 5/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Obtund (talk · contribs) 09:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Disregard what I said before, continue to review it if you wish. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted content:[1] Supported to wait for any good article nomination until the issues are solved. The reviews section is the WORST i've ever seen! Unscientific, with nonsense citations, defended by a few users - including YuMaNuMa - with many users sees it as biased, see talk! Tagremover (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Do not delete my content ! [2] This is not your talk page. Obey Wikipedia rules. Tagremover (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Do not revert my comment. Last warning. Tagremover (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Or what? If you insist on keeping the comments here, can you do me a favor by copying my reply to this page without altering it? YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 14:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Just behave and stop your aggression. Tagremover (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Aggression? You're the one who needs to stop SHOUTING, please... YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 20:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Postponed

I will hold off till issues are dealt with. Message me on my talk page, if I do not respond within 5 day renominate it. Obtund^Talk 23:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's some advice

Outstanding issue - Will be considered stale after no reply in a month, user is still unresponsive despite attempts to contact him by three editors YuMaNuMa ^Contrib

Check similar articles that have achieved good article status before blatantly accusing this article of not being neutral and being bias without citing some examples. Also note and understand the meaning of critical reception and don't remove entire chucks of information with discussing it on the talk page. What on earth gave you the impression that such a large removal would be accepted and ignored by the editors of this article? YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you cited some example, I'm going to explain why it deserves to be included in the article. It deserves its inclusion because this section is on the critical reception of the device, meaning information on how it was received by consumers and critics are included. Issues that were covered by the media are also included in the section. By the way you removed information from the commercial reception section and LTE usability section under the same rationale when information from those section weren't subjective at all, can you explain that and the reasons why you removed it? Also please check the iPad 2, iPad (3rd generation), iPhone 4S articles, which are all good articles for examples of information usually included in the critical reception section. Again, like what I've done before, I'm going to give you a limited period of time to reply to my messages before I remove all the tags that I find invalid from the article. You have acknowledged the existence of this thread at 11.12pm AESDT when you moved a thread from your talk page to this page. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Joking? Critical reception sections have not to fulfill Wikipedia rules??? Criticised receptions !

Those "receptions" are mostly a joke. Citations are the worst i´ve ever seen. Only some reasons: Unscientific, isolated, not representative amateur statements.
"Not life-changing": This fan-boys are unable to think clearly.
Drop tests: A good joke!
Lots of unproven statements. Remember: Not anything written is true!
Questionable, blog-style references. Tagremover (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

How about providing me with all your reasons instead of some so I can refute them all? Again, note that this is the critical reception section not a scientific analysis of faults, it's basically how reviewer or critics view the device, most of those claims are also attributed to a presumed expert working for a reliable source such as Engadget, ZDnet, Extremetech, etc, which are all considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. I removed the drop test as I agree that it's probably undue and based on limited findings. This isn't a scientific paper (WP:NOTJOURNAL), this an encyclopedia, information does not have to be verified by scientific analysis which usually involve months or even years of testing. Your view of how things should be run on Wikipedia seriously limits the amount of information we can include. Yeah, not everything written is true but when it's written by a reliable source it's assumed true unless stated otherwise in the future, your view of what's assume true and what's not again limits the information we can include across all fields. In addition to that, not only has the section fulfilled the requirements stated in the policy, much of the section is directly attributed to a source in the actual sentence. It's not bias because statements that are subjective are attributed to a source, it's not undue because several sources are generally cited for each paragraph, it's not unreliable because many if not all of the sources have been approved by WP:RSN and finally it's assumed factually accurate because reliable sources reported the information, it's extremely farfetched and unreasonable to assume otherwise and doing so would constitute speculation. Since you disclosed your conflict of interest by stating "this fanboys are unable to think clearly" when referring to a quote from a published source, regarding the iPhone 5 screen, why should we take any of your other claims seriously and not perceive them as attempts to skew the information in the section to your perspective. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Tagremover, you still need to address the comments above in the "Removal of sourced information" section. Otherwise, we'll assume you no longer oppose adding the information back. YuMaNuMa also dropped a notice on your talk page regarding a dispute resolution filing on this issue. Your comments there would be appreciated. Regarding the claims so far that these are unscientific, non-representative statements, we need specific examples unless you are challenging the entire section. Also, you should create a section on this talk page dedicated to describing your reasoning for using the undue template. At this point, let's try to resolve our differences here as opposed to reverting each other's edits in the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I too brought up my objection to the single sampled based drop-test earlier. See "Shatter resistance test" section. This is like "I dropped a bottle and it broke" and next person can drop another bottle and not have it break. Neither is conclusive of just how durable the bottle is. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. That method of testing isn't exactly scientific. However, YuMaNuMa addressed this above. The statement/source about that specific drop test has been removed. Are there any others? --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I apologise if I ignored an issue that you raised but please show me where you raised that specific point as one your concern in the discussion we had above. After reading complaints about that section from two editors, I was first made aware of the issue and immediately removed the section as I agreed with how the claims are quite undue and supported by very limited finding. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 21:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:IPhone_5#Shatter_resistance_test Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Unresponsive editor

Despite the repeated attempts of GoneIn60, myself and to some extent McGeddon, Tagremover has failed to respond to comments on this talk page, the iPhone 4S talk page and dispute resolution noticeboard. He has acknowledged most of these attempts by removing messages left by others from his talk page, hence I don't think we should further entertain and address his assertions if he decides to not cooperate with users to resolve the issue. Feel free to oppose and attempt to contact him but that is just how I feel, this is a global community and I don't think we should stop the development of this article for the sake of one user. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 03:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

How much time was he given before you declared him as non-responsive? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Almost three days now, also take into consideration that other editors have tried to contact him by posting directly on his talk page, these messages were later removed by him, suggesting he is aware that we're expecting a reply from him. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 23:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

While an editing dispute is being discussed, it is usually proper etiquette to keep the most recent stable version of the article in place until the dispute is resolved. In this case, that would mean restoring the content that was removed without consensus. Then the burden of a timely response is on the editor who wishes to gain consensus, or in this case, Tagremover. That way there is no harm to the article while waiting for a response that may never come. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

User generated poll

Notice

Outstanding issue - Will be considered stale after no reply in a monthYuMaNuMa ^Contrib

. I was not aware that there is a specific arbitrary time frame. Please cite the policy which states outstanding issues become stale after a period of one month. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm just trying to end old discussion with no reply as fast as possible and I think one month is more than enough time to consider a discussion stale unless users bring it up again. Please note I chose the period of one month because threads with no reply in that period will be archived. I would like to make it clear that even if an issue is stale, users can bring it up again either in the original thread or in a new thread, though the original one will most likely be archived by then, the system allows me and possibly other editors to focus their attention to current issues and nominate the article for GA once all current issues are resolved. As you can see, I attempted to class each discussion to allow other editors to reply to the ones that are still relevant and remind old participants that they should reply unless for whatever reason they don't believe it's worth the time anymore. It was sort of a WP:BOLD move to class them I guess but with the number of outstanding and unresolved issues here, something needed to be done. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 23:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

MacRumor poll

The value of having this in the article is questionable. The cited sources merely say that this poll happened. This does not make it important. Now, for those unfamiliar with the poll method, users registered on a message board called MacRumors see a thread, and clicks a button to put in their vote. To vote, the user must be registered, so the people with problem could have registered, then put in a vote while people without problem could have been less likely to bother registering. It's not a controlled survey. It's hard to justify that there's a valid correlation between general iPhone owner and those who hold accounts on MacRumors website. So, the poll only means that the result is only valid for those who have an account and bothered to go in the message thread and voted. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that a poll was created and received a large sample of responders, which increases the reliability of the poll. The sentence now makes it very clear that the poll was a user generated post, we can further make the type of website MacRumour is clearer in the prose if that is necessary but I honestly don't see it as a valid reason for why it should be excluded. Can we please bring this to WP:RSN so we can resolve the dispute quicker? YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 00:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Side note - Due to study commitments, I won't be able to reply in the same prompt manner as before. I'll still reply to your message within 2 days or so. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 00:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

We should strive to include polls that are scientific in nature which use random samples. The open access poll by MacRumour is not a good example of one that does. For the reasons stated above, I agree that it should be excluded. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I just think the prevalence of the issue should be included somewhere in the prose, would it be okay if we made it clearer what type of website MacRumour is and the number of respondents the poll received? Without the context, the issue may be seen as rather insignificant despite the large press coverage around it for the past month or so. With an estimate on the number of phones affects, we can provide readers with the context of the issue. If you guys still decide that the poll isn't of high standard enough, do you have any suggestions on how we can achieve what I said earlier? YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 23:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm entirely in agreement with GoneIn60. The media simply states that some website has that poll going on. There's no challenge that the poll did happen. It does not assert that its prevalent. What's being challenged is the value of having it in the article.

• Means of sampling is highly flawed as GoneIn60 addressed
• Ownership of iPhone 5 is not a requisite to create an account on MacRumors
• It relies on people voluntarily registering an account on website, then locating that thread to vote.
• A plausible guess is that a thread about a problem naturally attracts people who search for the problem online rather than people who just stumble in.

If you were to make a thread on a Salt Lake City forum asking people if they work on Sunday. Say it produces 10,000 votes saying 75% don't. "well that's a lot and not working on Sunday is prevalent across population based on our sample data. " This sampling method has a flaw, because it does not reach intended audience without systematic bias. A more meaningful survey has less systematic bias such as carriers calling up a random phone number in its database of customers with iPhone and asking if they have a out-of-box scratching problem. Since you're wanting to include it to advance your position of prevalence, this could be WP:UNDUECantaloupe2 (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a flawed poll, but I don't think anyone's arguing that the article should present it as being "prevalent across population based on our sample data". If the best context we have for how widespread the issue is that "on an informal user poll of a Mac site, 30% of the site's iPhone 5 owners reported this problem", and if reliable sources are trusting this figure enough to consider it worth reporting, I don't see a problem with presenting it in context. The current "some users have complained" is far too opaque - are many customers having the problem, or is it just a handful of fussy bloggers? --McGeddon (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The population here is the people who use iPhones. The poll itself can be entirely meaningless in accurately determining how wide/narrow spread this problem is. If people search for this problem, then register there, it has an effect of concentrating the positive response thus skewing the result. None of the reliable sources cited them with any authority. It was something like "if it was to be...." and the like. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I also cited a newspaper using their poll as reference for the prevalence of the issue, to provide you with some context, Herald Sun is currently Australia's highest circulating newspaper. Not only that, numerous other reliable sources are also referring to their poll, [1] [2] in addition to ones currently cited. As of 11/11, the poll has over 2200 respondent, in most cases that's more than enough to verify a specific situation in a non-scientific manner. Here's what I'm suggesting, "According to a user generated poll on MacRumors, an Apple related technology news website, of 2200 respondents, about 45% of which reported scuffing on their devices either shortly after the using the phone or directly out of the box.", with context provided, it allows readers to assess the extent themselves with the provided information, which as stated before is cited by numerous other reliable sources. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 23:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If we don't have any reliable sources telling us whether this problem was experienced by five users or fifty thousand users (and if no reliable source has bothered looking into the numbers beyond citing, at arm's length, one unscientific user poll), then maybe it's not actually worth mentioning the scuffing issue at all here. --McGeddon (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as excluding the entire issue altogether as there is little dispute that the issue has received quite a large amount of coverage from both mainstream and technology sources, this should mean that the issue passes notability criteria. The amount of coverage does suggest the issue is prevalent, however I doubt any organisation would put time and effort in resolving or even investigating such relatively minute issue. Many of the issues mentioned in the section are considered relatively minute, however most received a considerable coverage hence there no policy based reason why it should be excluded. Note that this issue is prevalent enough to have received a response from a head Apple executive. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 11:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's look at it this way. We have more than one reliable secondary source that mentions an unreliable primary source, the MacRumor online poll. It's unreliable for the reasons stated above, but also because the secondary sources do not attempt to do a statistical expert analysis of the data. Instead, they are merely reporting the existence of the poll and spending more time investigating why the issue is occurring. There is no concrete conclusion about the poll's findings or a real-world estimate on the percentage of iPhones impacted. The absence of expert analysis means we should avoid citing numerical data from the poll or even the poll itself. The fact that this is an online poll in an uncontrolled environment only reinforces that position. Any editor that wants to mention the poll, must realize that beyond this discussion, it will likely continue to receive scrutiny and remain a controversial topic. If you need more reason not to include it, look at what other editors have said about the use of statistical data and in an RSN discussion. In the RSN discussion, one editor brings up a good point about the criteria that should be met when citing a poll:

"...when the poll is carried out by a reputable polling agency, and results published in a reliable source, then it is fine to cite it".

Clearly, the MacRumor message forum fails the first test of being a reputable polling agency. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Point taken; to achieve what I said earlier, perhaps we can note the number of news sources that covered the issue instead of including the poll. Otherwise, I guess we can exclude the prevalence and let readers decide, though a copyedit in my opinion is necessary if the information was to be removed. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, I agree that it has received a lot of coverage that deserves some kind of mention in the article. I would just avoid using specific numbers/percentages from the poll, mainly because those numbers aren't fixed and can change at any time, but also because they haven't been sufficiently analyzed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it nice

Isn't nice when we can all work things out and manage to agree on something? :) YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 21:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Battery capacity

Rectified - Kept as it is because it's speculative to assume that the battery capacity varies from batch to batch YuMaNuMa^Contrib

NOT rectified. it's not part of the official specification, so Apple is not required to provide same mAh rating in each batch. It needs a clear in-text note that its not a official spec in the infobox. "there are others like it too" does not override WP:RS Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It was challenged in the teardown section with argument over what source to trust. I marked the currently sourced reference as dubious, because, the finding is based on the site's review of tear down based on one product sample. Since they're not the one in knowledge of product design or sourcing, it is only representative of that particular lot and does not necessarily factor for other production lots or Apple's change in supplier of battery. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

So then what makes a sources able to be "trusted". They have to be well-established? Well-funded? Part of a corporation? Part of a research institute? Have a million-dollar budget in order to be counted as "reliable" sources? These teardowns are the physical taking apart of an item and testing the parts with tools. How does a measure of "trust"/reliability apply to factual results? It's either one thing or another. You can't have "biased" results. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the sources in question here, but many teardown reports are not published or even from "respected mainstream publications" as recommended by WP:SOURCES. That's not to say some aren't legit, however. If we were just talking about taking things apart and shooting some pics to share on the web, that would be one thing. But many attempt to run tests and draw conclusions that haven't been fact-checked by an editor or expert in the field. That's where it gets dicey. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Apple would know if they're keeping the specs of certain components identical between production revisions, production batches etc, but if the mAh spec is not part of the official specs, its subject to change. So, what might be correct for that sample the researcher dissected is accurate for that sample, it might not mean anything for another production lot. 06:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 (talk • contribs)

We've been over this, provide a source that isn't based on assumptions conceived prior to the actual release of the phone and we will start from there. At the moment, what you're saying is nothing more than speculation as we have sources that verify that claim. This applies for many other components that were not mentioned on the Apple website but was confirmed by experts working in field, working for reliable sources such as Anandtech, geek.com and so forth. I have reverted your assertion of it being an "unofficial specification" for now. If you want to refute that claim, you need to refute many others that exist on these pages; Apple Ax, iPad 2, iPad (3rd generation), iPhone 4S and plethora of others as they all rely on secondary sources that researched about the component. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 09:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Do not revert removal of synthesis

Outstanding issue - Will be considered stale after no reply in a month YuMaNuMa ^Contrib

Please do not make further reverts. I have actually reviewed both cited references and these claims are not found. I have no clue who inserted that in the first place, but if it's a conclusion that an editor came up with through reading multiple sources, WE DO NOT include them. This is per WP:SYNTHESIS. This is a Wikipedia policy.

• Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

• If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.

• This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to revert edits at least do it properly, don't add some half-ass inline reference such as referring to the author as "Anthony", CNET as "Cnet" and ExtremeTech as "Extreme". I have absolutely no problem with someone ultising the WP:BRD cycle but at least do it properly. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If I said "extreme" that was a mistake. It's a common practice to address author by their last name. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If I misread Anthony as the author's first name, I apologise. Sorry if I sounded harsh but it really bugged me as you seem to have mentioned the source incorrectly in two edits. In regards to your most recent edit summary - I understand that a conflict of interest may exist but to assume such conflict is unreasonable as most sources do possess a level of bias, newspapers for example may tend to exaggerate claims to increase newspaper circulation or reduce severity of issues regarding its major sponsors. As mentioned, it's simply beyond us to suggest that due to a concealed and unknown conflicted of interest, their sources are consider opinionated, biased, unreliable. Many many, undoubtedly reputable sources also refer to iFixit as experts in the field of teardowns (Their rating scale is thus reliable to a certain extent)1. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Contrib Updated 12:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I corrected so that CNET reads in correct case and that both reference to ExtremeTech's editor is referred as Anthony rather than full name in first, for consistency sake. As far as recalls "suggested by several media outlets", that needs to be the word of the reference cited. As far as I can tell, the references cited for that particular sentence only shows that its only the opinion of Anthony to suggest recall. My edit is based on what I can locate in the reference. "prevalence"... also not able to locate. Also, unless we can establish that Anthony as an expert in field through secondary sources, we shouldn't be including his suggestion as expert advise. The fact he works at ExtremeTech and opined through the domain of ET doesn't grant him an expert status. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're taking WP:Synthesis too literally, it's common for editors to come to a conclusion of claiming that "many" or "several" sources suggests a certain fact by citing 2 or more references, in some cases up to 10 sources may be cited to satisfy more "hardline" editors although most will eventually be removed due to over-citing hence several sources should rightfully be included in the article, same goes for the recalling, if you don't reply to this point explicitly, I'm going to revert the coining and suggestions of recall sentence and add another reference for the recalling part of the sentence. I'm willing to remove "due to the severity or prevalence", however 30-40% is obviously a prevalent non-fixable issue and Extremetech highlights this fact by mentioning it. We also can't just assume that the author for that article is not an expert, Extremetech is also a reputable source with a high alexa ranking and a Wikipedia article that seems to have passed notability guidelines, writers and journalist working for the site are assumed experts or rely on information from experts, if your logic is adhere to throughout Wikipedia, most web sources are useless as it is almost impossible to determine the expertise and knowledge of authors. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The burden is on the person adding the information that its verifiable. It is clearly detained in what constitutes expert. the burden isn't to prove someone isn't an expert. If the said author is an expert, then per WP:RS the expertise needs to be verifiable through secondary sources. What part of that is not clear? You need to quit making assumptions and read what is in the sources. It was clearly stated in the cited source, NBCNews that it was "alleged". Rosa Goligan,quote in quote "Apple senior vice president of marketing Phil Schiller allegedly had with a customer such cosmetic issues are "normal.". In fact, the fact that NBC cited 9to5mac which was quoted within that article, as "allegedly" is because it has not done its own fact checking. It's only the word of 9to5 that it has verified the validity. "it's common for editors to come to.." does not mean its acceptable. You don't get to reinterpret the rules as you see fit. "however 30-40% is obviously(..based on findings of YOUR research) a prevalent" again.. which is through your research opinion making it WP:OR. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No, you're the one who needs to stopping making assumptions about authors not being experts, and speaking of such what constitutes an expert, you haven't even made that clear. Again you altered the entire sentence when simply inserting allegedly will suffice. Allegedly or not does not make a huge difference in my opinion - that's probably not your opionion but whatever. The real issue here is your interpretation or understanding of WP:Synthesis. Everyone else does it because IT IS CORRECT, claiming that many sources reach that conclusion is not creating another further or secondary claim that is independent of what was stated in the source. I clearly said in the prose that the term was coined by the media which constitutes as 2 or news sources and thus cited "several" sources, further inspection of other sources suggesting the recall links or refers to Extremetech hence I removed "several media" and just included "Extremetech". YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

sending it off for RfC.

Many sources used as references and the way it is added here do not go with our policies on WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:RS and no original research. Is this expected for tech article like iPhone 5 or am I reasonable to expect it to be held to higher standards on requiring cited author to be verified as expert before accepting anecdotes and opinions from them? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Exceptions exist, like with most policies, reading the rule word for word and expecting it to be imposed reasonably in every context and situation is simply absurd. Most of what was done in relations to referencing and consolidating numerous sources is acceptable in most articles and was done numerous times in other iOS device articles that I have contributed to in the past which are now "Good articles" and successfully passed reviews. Not once was reference stated as an issue when compiling the number of references and making a general statement that summarises the source that were cited (eg. "The iPhone 5 was mainly positively received.", "led to Scuffgate being coined by the media", etc.) Issue also in question is whether writers for websites that specialise in technology(in this situation) should be regarded as experts. -- I'm done reverting until a comment from RfC has been provided. Link to the sample of alteration in question, "While reception to the iPhone 5 has been generally positive, the new Maps application has been negatively received and was reported to contain many serious errors" was also disputed with a similar rationale - correct me if I'm wrong. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC) Altered at 1.07am AESDT 20/10

Specifically, for RfC I'd like to get input on when those "exceptions" maybe. I find unknown quality commercial review sites like this as well as personal websites should be added. Though it is no-follow, sites are nonetheless motivated by traffic Wikipedia generates and permitting such links to infiltrate article encourages those who stand to gain profit from sites to find excuse to add sites in the interest of getting links to stick rather than improve the quality of contents. These websites, in my opinion are of hearsay "he feels that..." level material. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I also think that my edit conveys the contents with minimal infusion of personal bias by avoiding editorial influence as an editor. Please comment [3]. From another article, someone commented to me that its a good idea to make it clear that blog style comment to be attributed to the author as they're not expressed as the official opinion of the company. I mean... if it should even be included at all. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No arguments there but if the author is writing for a website regardless of whether it's an individual or group effort, the site should be verbally cited in the prose along with the name of the author. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 14:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:NEWSBLOG, which is part of Verifiability section of core contents policy of Wikipedia. So, my attribution to the author seems to be correct. To comment on your statement "We also can't just assume that the author for that article is not an expert",as per WP:SPSthe burden is on the person including to prove it. I'm unable to find third party sources vouching for said author(Mr. Anthony from ExtremeTech). Self proclaimed expertise does not count. "Extremetech is also a reputable source with a high alexa ranking" We don't work that way. If one of your commenters find that I'm misinterpreting the WIKIPEDIA POLICIES, please explain so I can better future edits. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Generally, a high alexa ranking website is more reputable than an unknown and low alexa ranking website, their reader base along with other factors including their history as a source on Wikipedia are factors that need to be considered. I can personally say that I have quite a bit of experience editing technology articles and know which sites are considered reputable and which are not, this doesn't make me an expert in the field nor does it mean the sources I cite are automatically verifiable, however I do know which sources have a history of reliability through experience. Some of these newsblogs have already been questioned before on WP:RSN and the result is the same - they're reliable with 100% of the responders agreeing with the sentiment. Example of what I'm trying to convey - WP:RSN (Find: Extremetech Your hardline approach to verifiability makes it impossible for editors to add information and improve articles, I'm not suggesting WP:IAR but going into the depths of questioning whether every individual author for a weblog that has already been acknowledged as reliable is excessive. Furthermore as I said before, I have no problem with directly acknowledging the author along with the website if reliability is that much of an issue, in fact, I would encourage it however, moderation should obviously be applied. Mentioning Anthony twice in one line may be a bit repetitive. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 23:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Applying the concepts of RS requires common sense, good judgment, and a knowledge of the sources customarily accepted in the subject at question. In computer technology, while I am not an expert, I have observed that the experts are of the consistent opinion that they are notably less formal than in many other subjects,

But returning to the issue of "many" and "several", I normally remove such words whenever I encounter them, while leaving in the examples. I usually view it more as a case of sloppy writing rather than Synthesis; it's not a major sin, or something to fight over. I think it much better to simply cite a few of the most authoritative sources and let it go at that. The reader will assume that if several major industry sources all report something, it is a general view, but they should be left to draw that conclusion. As YuMa says, a few strong examples are sufficient--and much better than vague words. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying the use of many or several sources is not considered synthesis, in this case is it appropriate to summarise the main sentiments in the lead? For example, the iPhone 5 was mainly/primarily positively received by technology commentators and reviewers, then outlining the issues that some have raised. Or should the source be directly quoted in the sentence regarding what it said. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 00:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that he's saying its ok for you to read A, and B.. then form a conclusion C based on your research. That is what WP:SYNTHESIS specifically says not to do. But if you were to report A said this and B said that, you should leave it for the audience to conclude. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I worded what I previously said incorrectlu or unclearlu. I meant, is it okay to summarise several sources into one sentence if those sources both expressly hold similar or identical views by using phrases such as, "Several media sources", "reviews concluded/praised", "the device generally received positive/negative reviews" and so forth. In such cases, you're not exactly making a further conclusion, you're only combining similar or identical sentiments into a general statement. This is frequently done in the lead or first line of the reception section in most articles with the aforementioned section. Identifying individual reviewers in the lead seems WP:UNDUE and the process of choosing which to include over other similarly reputable and reliable sources seems, if I may, arbitrary. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 02:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Stop editing content that is clearly in question, DGG already said that such claims are not consider WP:Synthesis. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC response

Please cite the contentious sentences and refs so they can be discussed individually, ideally in their own sections. That would be more productive here. You both would agree that sites like phonesreview.co.uk are generally not RS and that a high-level article such as iPhone 5 shouldn't have to rely on low-level blogs. If the claim is so widespread that "most" believe it, there will be plenty of citations to choose from (and, therefore, a more reputable source). Prefer sites known for their journalistic integrity that won't be questioned. If you have an issue with specific wording as WP:SYN, inline tag it and bring it to the talk page immediately for discussion. Re: the edit linked above (assuming this is all about Scuffgate), I personally think the ExtremeTech quotes give undue weight unless it can be said why ExtremeTech's theories matter more than anyone else's (or are particularly notable). I'll add that I don't think the ExtremeTech citations help the article—it wouldn't be worse off if the sentences attributed from it were pulled altogether. I'm not watching this article so ping me if you want more. czar · · 06:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll do what I can to lighten and reduce the number of attribution to Extremetech but from what I can see, their theories are noted because they are the only ones notable enough to be included in the article. Based on their published history and reputation as a technology sources, I did not see including several theories from them as a potential problem especially when their story was republished and cited several times by other sources on the web. If more theories exist then of course they deserve mention in the article given reliable sources are available but at this point in time none other than Extremetech's theories are available or supported by reliable sources hence they are the only ones included. Extremetech and information from it adds value to the article and provides reason for why a significant issue exist from the perspective of an assumed expert, I see absolutely no reason why it should be removed when attribution regardless of its excessiveness has been made and a reliable source has been cited. The excessiveness of direct attribution to Extremetech would probably be seen as a case of poor writing rather than a breach of policy, failure to meet notability or what you're suggesting. Thank you for your comment on the issue, it will definitely be taken into account when I get a chance to rewrite the paragraph as I find further sources. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Will do over the next few days. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm another RfC responder who has no history with this page. It sounds like you all might want to take this to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for more specific input from editors. Andrew (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm yet another RfC responder, I'm not familiar with this page or its history, but this case as a RfC has neither spawned many opinions nor reached any consensus, some policies on Wikipedia are guidelines to prevent major errors, SYNTH and OR can be circumvented if the community reach consensus on what is written, there are some well known example from articles which were written from scrap (I don't know its name right now), but were amazingly written, but they are all OR, however the wikipedia users reached a consensus on it to either keep or remove some parts. However I agree with what Andrew posted above, this may be taken to RSN. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 16:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Disputes that have been settled

*iFixit is considered a reliable source for component details and product reviews in relations to their expertise in teardowns and assembly. - iFixit needs to be restore as the source for battery info. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib

Foxconn spokesman

Outstanding issue - My edits have yet to be approved by Cantaloupe YuMaNuMa ^Contrib

Currently the source cited for that claim is reliable despite the language differences, I can understand the basics of the language and can verify that what's included in the article is a close translation of what was stated in the source. Please note that the statement has been attributed to the spokesman thus readers should be aware of its potentially bias nature. It's extremely difficult to find a neutral third party source on the impact of operations at factory as a result of the strikes as companies generally keep business data and operation records to themselves hence reports from a spokesman are the closest thing we are going to get to a full neutral report, news reports about companies also generally rely on information from company spokesmen and their press releases, this proves that their use is widely accepted even in editorised writings. In addition to that, you're not going to find any sources other than ones directly attributed to the spokesman on the number of absents. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's another improper editorializaton:

the source

"Gou said that the delay was because the latest iPhone was hard to make, but wouldn't explain which part in particular was causing the problem. It's been previously suggested that a lot of iPhone 5s get turned back by quality control inspectors, perhaps because they get visibly scratched during assembly."

The claim made, which I changed:

"In November 2012, Foxconn chairman, Terry Gou reported that assembly difficulties have limited production after the strike due to phones being turned back because of visible scratches on the units."

Gou was not quoted saying that. There's nothing to support the claim "visible scratches" was the ultimate casuality. --Cantaloupe2 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean another, where is the first one? Instead of claiming sources inadequately support the claim, perhaps you should read it first; "The new quality demands included "indentations standards of 0.02mm and demands related to scratches on frames and back covers" China Labor Watch said." - This is regarding you changing the Guardian source for the corresponding claim to The Register source, it was unnecessary, so is your claim that it was inadequately supported. I have clarified the sentence that you are now complaining about and made it clearer to readers that The Register suggests that the scratches inflicted is the cause, I hardly believe that a source mentioning it constitutes nothing. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 03:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Editorialized statement issue over what was in The Register this edit

source states " It's been previously suggested that a lot of iPhone 5s get turned back by quality control inspectors, perhaps because they get visibly scratched during assembly."

"perhaps because" is what the source says to denote that their editorial staff is basically guessing. Synthesizing to "due to" creates a false impression that it was suggested with definitive certainty that rejection was caused by scrathes, something not established by what is in reference, so this is a potential inappropriate editorialization on part of a wiki editor Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a big issue in my opinion but if you insist then I have absolutely no problem with it, however can I suggest we put the suggestion by The Register or conjunction used, in quotation marks so to appears less editorialised. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 00:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You cared enough to revert it hence the above explanations. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the changes because I thought it was unnecessary and also thought that "suggest" negated the strong effect but in my opinion it's not significant enough to warrant a debate, however you're insisting on the changes, so let it be then. Why can't you just accept that and move on instead of further challenging whether I care or not? YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 10:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sebastian Anthony ExtremeTech

anodization

In the sourced article labeled "Scuffgate" he commented on his article with

"Yeah, I would guess that it's a very thin layer -- or it isn't being sealed properly." and he correlates it to his anecdotal experience with other Apple devices. He is not a metal finishing expert, so his opinion here shouldn't be included. His opinion regarding metal anodizing has no greater value than that of anyone else in my opinion, because it is completely outside of his or ExtremeTech's field of specialty. Have a look at his profile. It does not establish expertise in surface treatment. so, this is WP:SPS. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's break this down bit by bit. You're citing SPS incorrectly as the source is not a self-published as it's considered reliable and the author is part of a larger editorised network of journalist and writers. It does have weight as the comments are coming from a reliable source, which attempts to provide reasons for why the phenomenon exist, note this is why we included the word "speculate" and not anything more definitive, if needed we can further identify what type of website Extremetech is to clarify the details. Consensus may be needed for this issue as content is from a reliable source. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 10:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

He makes it clear that metal issue is his guess. Journalist's guess is not an expert opinion, so yes, it is self-published material. It is his PERSONAL speculation.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Your going beyond what the policy says hence your still citing it incorrectly. It's his speculation hence the reason why we included "Anthony speculates that...", we also attributed the speculation to him and from reading his article it's not like he pulled it out his rear-bit as the writer provided evidence to support his claims hence it's not unreasonable to include it. Even if a metal expert confirms it, it will still be speculation as the scuffing occurs for various reasons, I noted that many reasons do exist in my first editing but it was removed as it wasn't stated in the source even though common sense verifies it. By the way learn to use Wiki-language and stop SHOUTING, for the 2nd time now. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 10:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not the point. Whether you cite as "he claims" or not, because his field of expertise is not in metal finishing, it is no different from citing a personal webpage and writing "this person on a website says", so this is why it is WP:SPS. Let's wait for GoneIn60 or someone else to chime in. A notice of 3RR was left on your talk page as you had already made three direct reversions. Also, I highlight the key points. It's just like emphasizing the key points when one speaks. I'm not typing in all bold/all capital.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as I said a consensus or input from other editors is needed as I understand what you're trying to say but believe it's not a reason to exclude it. Using capital letter on Wikipedia is generally seen as shouting and I perceive it that way hence the messages. WP:SHOUT YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 11:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that we're quoting a journalist's blog comment here, rather than an article he published (and which would have been fact-checked), this does seem like inappropriate use of non-expert WP:SPS. --McGeddon (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If it was clearly labeled as a blog entry on the site or contained some kind of the disclaimer saying these views do not necessarily reflect the views of ExtremeTech, then I would completely agree. However, I'm not so sure from its appearance that ExtremeTech doesn't support the view or that it didn't go through an editor before being posted on the site. Most sites will have "blog" somewhere in the URL, which is not the case here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake if it's not regarded as a blog. The point is that the quote is taken from a remark made in the comments below the article, rather than in the article itself. I'd say that this made it a self-published statement, lacking the "meaningful editorial oversight" that Wikipedia requires of its sources. --McGeddon (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The statement is by the author in the body of the article. Look just below the first YouTube video. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies again, then, someone just requested my comment on this thread which began by discussing the "Yeah, I would guess that it's a very thin layer" quote, so I mistook that for the relevant part. --McGeddon (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess I blew right past that part and just looked at the source as a whole, so I see where you're coming from. Looks like Cantaloupe2 placed more focus on that comment below, which does appear to add uncertainty to the source's reliability. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on expert analysis (pardon the pun), but here's what WP:CRYSTAL states:

Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.

The policy statement may be open to some interpretation, but I feel that as long as the speculation is by a recognized entity (in this case, ExtremeTech) and doesn't appear to represent a minority viewpoint (it might, that's debatable), then it's in line with the guideline and can be included. However, should other editors find a source that contradicts the statement, then it should be inserted to show the contrast or, alternatively, the previous ExtremeTech comment should be removed. If more than one source is found to contradict the statement, then that places ExtremeTech in the minority view, and the claim in the article will need to be given less weight if it is to remain. But let's not speculate about all the possible scenarios just yet! --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. What I wanted to say is that while he maybe considered recognized when it comes to computer technology, I'm finding no indication that he's got any credibility beyond, for example, someone who states("i know a buddy who works at body shop and...."). Metal surface coating is not Anthony's or ExtremeTech's field of expertise. In my opinion, this is like paint and coating specialists commenting on the iPhone's technical features. If they were to write about the coating, they may say something about the phone itself, but a coating/finishing magazine wouldn't be a reliable source for other aspects of iphone.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. ExtremeTech focuses on computer technology and would not be considered a recognized entity in metallurgy or manufacturing engineering. However, the editing process at magazines and newspapers often involve experts in such fields before publishing, though it's not specifically mentioned in that online article. I'd be interested to hear what other editors think. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(Another editor) The sentence about Sebastian's theory adds undue weight. If his theory was notable others would have referred to it or at least said something like it. I think any mention of scuffgate should be brief (due weight given the length of this article). It should mention online complaints about scuffs (use the All Things D and CNET sources), Apple's response (at least one of the articles mentioned Apple Stores exchanging them, but I don't know about an official response), and how it was resolved (if at all). It should be really brief and reflect consensus between news sources. czar · · 17:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"...reflect consensus between news sources" - This is a convincing argument. If ExtremeTech is the only one out there making these claims, then we are giving it undue weight by including it in the article. Excellent point that may cause others to reconsider. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm certain that this article has been reproduced by another source but unfortunately I can't find it at the moment. I understand that the reliability of a source is limited to an extent, however that extent is not clearly determined in the source as the reliability may rise and fall depending on their source/s and where they obtained their information. It's unlikely a technology commentator is able to write two paragraphs on the process without the help of experts hence that is where their reliability limit is unclear. Also note that in the sentence in question that the word "speculate" is used, this was done because editors have noted that the opinion Extremetech reached is not definite, as Extremetech is a reliable technology source, they do have a certain level of right to comment on related issues as, however I agree less weight should be given; perhaps further increase the level of uncertainty surrounding the speculation but based on policy I still don't believe it should be removed as attribution and all level of citations have been given as well as the reason I provided before. Just to clarify my whole position on this section - I'm not trying to imply ownership of the article whatsoever, I personally added much of the content as I believe it's relevant to the article and section hence I'm currently just simply supporting my previous rationale for including it. None of this was included because I have some sort of position that I want to advance or sites that I want promote - all this was added for the purpose of informing as I believe it is relevant and significant enough to be included. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

With the full protection in place for now, maybe we can get some additional comments from other editors in the meantime. If it is decided by consensus to remove the comment, and later additional sources are found, we can always revisit the issue here on the talk page before inserting the claim back into the article. I think the full protection that has been placed on the article is a clear indication that we should be seeking consensus more often, especially when dealing with content in the critical reception section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

According to the source, Apple has not yet provided response to official comment request. I'm not sure if it has provided a statement since then. Lacking official statement from Apple reading that it is considered defective and Apple store will replace them, the occurrence of replacement can just be individual store's discretion. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification surrounding ExtremeTech editor's comments

Anthony stated in body:

"It is possible that the anodized coating is so soft that it’s being scuffed"
"It seems most likely that the scuffs are being caused at the production line in China."

Note the use of weak wording and lack of reasoning or specific references supporting why. We must remember that not every comment made by even experts are within their field of expertise.

Anthony addressed readers in article comment logged in with administrative privilege with "admin" which is a clear and convincing evidence that it was made by him and not someone registered under the same name.

In that comment, he stated: "Yeah, I would guess that it's a very thin layer -- or it isn't being sealed properly. The thing is, Apple has a lot of experience with anodization -- many/all of its smaller iPods are anodized (the fancy-coloured ones). It knows how to make a tough anodized product..." The degree of uncertain is strong here. So my argument here is that, at this point, I'm convinced that his speculation on this issue is no better than some dude on the internet. If he is a published author of a peer-reviewed journal on something like ASME on the matter relevant to aluminum surface coating, that puts him on expert category, but he is not as far as I know. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I responded to the thread above. If his speculation/theory was important enough to be included in the iPhone 5 encyclopedia article, it would be cited elsewhere. All references to his scuffing theory add undue weight unless there is evidence that his theory is notable. I'd recommend their removal. Keep this simple. czar · · 17:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Editorializing to strengthen statement beyond what's supported by source

Wikipedian's edotirialized statement: "The issue is not localized to a specific region either, with similar reports also recorded in Hong Kong and Europe."

Scuffgate doesn’t seem to be a localized issue: There have been lots of reports from the west coast of the US, of course, but users in Europe and Hong Kong are also reporting scuffed phones. The damage isn’t being caused by overzealous Apple fans, desperate to get their sterilized tentacles on the new iPhone, either: The scuffed iPhones are seemingly already damaged when they arrive, before anyone has had a chance to finger them aggressively. source Source does not mention where the reports are. It is justifiably uncertain and states "doesn't seems to be" yet wiki editor reworded it to read "is not". This is inappropriately editorializing by an editor to advance their position to dramatize the issue. to state "it is". The source does not even discuss where the reports are recorded. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Nor does it need to mention who or what their sources were, to be cited as source on Wikipedia. That wasn't your main reason for tagging the sentence and I wouldn't have reverted the dubious tag if the "seems to", "is not" reason was provided instead. From memory I didn't initially word it in that manner however, your pedantic attitude is making it very hard for everyone to improve this article, it's uncalled for and in the situations you experienced with other editors, they probably agree too. Editors try their best to adhere to policies and standards set by the community and you're yet again assuming otherwise, you directly chose to assume that editors "editorialised" the article to advance their position instead of good faith. I have had just enough of your assumptions of bad faith and will not hesitate to report you to WP:ANI for doing so, your attitude here and on Wikipedia in general causes tensions and conflict and there is no shortcoming of them that involve you. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 10:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you will find any opposition to adjusting the statement so that it's in line with the source. I agree that "is not" is more definitive than the source's "doesn't seem to be" and should be changed accordingly. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

 DoneCantaloupe2 (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"Succeeded by: Incumbent"??

The use of the word "Incumbent" is surely wrong here. Incumbent means the one currently in office/usage, so this would mean the iPhone 5 would succeed the iPhone 5, which is entirely wrong. (A link for perusal: http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/incumbent). A suggestion for a better correct word to use would be "Successor". Jimthing (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

India release date

The iPhone 5 was officially released in India on November 2:

http://tech2.in.com/news/smartphones/apple-officially-launches-iphone-5-in-india/554992

http://www.thehindu.com/business/companies/iphone-5-a-veblen-good-in-india/article4062340.ece

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-11-02/gadgets-special/34877478_1_nano-sim-iphone-airtel-and-aircel

http://www.apple.com/in/iphone/buy/ (phone can be purchased on the company's site)

This should be added to the release dates section in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.204.3.49 (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis, reliability of sources, and generalizations

Going along with the statements made in previous sections, I have removed the "scuffgate" content, since that is WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYNTHESIS of content cherry-picked from sites that have been questioned by others for reliability/editorialized content. It is undue weight and synthesis to make generalized claims using a few sources. We are not here to deposit news reports and give undue weight/make generalized claims. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The information questioned in recent threads above focuses on an ExtremeTech editor's comment about "why" the scuffing is occurring (Sebastion Anthony). That theory wasn't reported by anyone else, and consensus decided to throw it out. However, "scuffgate" as a whole has yet to be challenged. It has been reported by several reliable sources, such as All Digital and CNET. I agree with czar above that its existence can be mentioned, as long as it's kept brief, doesn't cite numbers, and uses those sources as inline citations. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yea, but the sentences are still added with undue weight and badly worded. The sentences are synthesized generalizations using a few sources, and these 4 tags: {{who}}, {{what}}, {{whom}}, {{weasel}} apply to them. I've reworded/removed the badly worded/redundant/extra sentences and refs. Let me know if my amended removal still presents any problems. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning where the reports came from – the MacRumor poll – wouldn't be synthetic and removing it may be challenged, but it doesn't bother me one way or the other. I applied a few tweaks and am fine with the way it reads. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

iPhone 5 will be released in Korea on December 7th.

The iPhone 5 will be released in South Korea on December 7th by SKTelecom and KT. Source: KT website: http://mobile.olleh.com/obrand2/iphone/main.asp' SKTelecom website: http://www.tworldshop.co.kr/outsite.jsp (both in korean) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.177.43.147 (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

iPhone 5 coming to China on Dec 14th

CUPERTINO, California―November 30, 2012―Apple® today announced the Wi-Fi versions of iPad® mini and fourth generation iPad with Retina™ display will be available in China on Friday, December 7, and iPhone® 5 will be available on Friday, December 14.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2012/11/30iPad-mini-iPhone-5-Arrive-in-China-in-December.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niezam (talk • contribs) 14:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The Edit War

Dear All, there seems to be over the last few days or so, an edit war taking place on this article. The article has been placed under temporary full protection as per content disputes WP:FULL. From observing the editing history of the article it would seem the dispute has been between two individuals who have constantly undermined each others contributions for one reason or another. Please do not let this happen again. I for one enjoy contributing to this article, and to see this privilege taken away by the rivalry of two other people is upsetting. Please, once the Full Protection has been lifted on the 20th, do not carry this on. It is selfish and unnecessary. I hope we can carry on this article in peace. Cheers. --Tacita620 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Now many editors will be prevented from editing it for a week (get ready for some {{edit protected}} templates!). If the edit war shows signs of being done and not reoccurring, I might file an unprotect request. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 17:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This is discouraging, but what I have noticed is in past article ipad and previous if yumanuma is not correct he will get into an edit war. On the iPad 3 article he did it with a bunch of editors over how 4g lte should be cited which was unnecessary and almost got the page locked. I believe that Yumanuma maybe even be block from his disruptive editing. I have issued him a warning. Obtund^Talk 17:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't resist replying to this - In that article, I simply added a tag and as stated in my reply on my talk page to you, tags should be retained if the issue isn't rectified or if conflicts about the content arise regardless of whether how many editors agree or disagree until a consensus is called and/or reached. In that article, I made directly edits to the content twice and stopped to participate in the discussion afterwards, all I did there that possibly remotely appears like an edit war was restore the tag when it was removed repeatedly despite my constant pleas with the other editors. This hardly constitutes edit warring. In this article, I reverted a large removal of sourced content and reverted content that was in question and replied to discussion on the talk page, as with any other article the most stable version should be retained, which is the version I tried to restore the article back to - the maximum number of times I reverted the same content was twice, if the editor reverted it once more, I simply copied the diff link to the discussion thread. Furthermore the tags that other editors added were retained unless the editor who added them was unresponsive and other editors agreed to remove them or issues that were raised were resolved. I make no apologies about extensively debating/discussing issues on the talk page like I've always had and reserve the right to defend content that I've added in a manner that's well within the policies of Wikipedia. For some odd reason, you're singling me out despite the hostile approach that some other editors have taken, as you can see my contributions have mostly been positive, your threats of me getting blocked due to disruptive editing is almost absurd as incidents of actions that could possibly constitute edit warring are highly isolated, however as per above, I have the right to defend content that I've added. As shown time and time again, i am capable of apologising if I made a mistake and can accept the fact that I'm wrong but will not digress from a seemingly civil discussion on the talk page because it's bothersome and diverts editor's attention away from improving the article, I am not in control of the actions of others. If i have an issue I will frankly discuss it after reverting it once as per the BRD cycle and encourage any editor that may have an issue with content to put forth their concerns. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 07:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't ever have time to read all this, but yumanuma, I wasn't trying to get you in to trouble, I was trying to help you not get into trouble. Obtund^Talk 23:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

When is the block getting lifted? It appears to be set to expire on April 28, 2013. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The full protection expired on the 18th, but semi-protection was restored earlier today (the 21st). Where did you see April 28, 2013? The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 19:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It is the Semi Protection that will expire on the 28th April 2013!! You can edit all you want now :) --Tacita620 (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

More images?

For an article of such a length I think we need more than 3 images, excluding the one in the infobox. Although I agree with cantaloupe that the ev of the queuing image was quite poor relative to the space it took up, something needs to be done to appeal to a visually stimulated audience. How do you guys feel about including an image of David Pogue like what was done in the Samsung Galaxy S III article? this really isn't a major issue, I'm just suggesting. :) YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 18:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't like what was done there either and the comment there looks like something written by a fanboy. A picture of him didn't really add value, help anything and I had to read the caption below to figure out how it even relates to Galaxy III. I think pictures got to complement the article, not just litter up useless pics. Here's something that could be useful.. a picture of female interface connector on unit. Someone who has the iPhone 5 can get around copyright issues by taking a picture themself. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

There are heaps of nice images of the iPhone 5 port under the creative commons license on Flickr, here's a few -1, 2, 3. The third one is obviously more informative, however angle that the picture was taken at ruined the shot in my opinion. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 01:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see view from all sides and close up of something one would look at if they were checking out a display unit. Encyclopaedingness outweighs visual prettiness in priority. I think its better to have few pictures than a bunch of non-encyclopaedic pictures. There is no suggestions of length to pictures ratio as far as I know. The pictures used obviously needs to be neutral and free of hidden underlying purpose, such as displayed picture on screen chosen with the intent to increase publicity for the site shown. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope, there isn't a ratio, however too many images in an article can warrant a warning tag, a lack can result in the article failing the image criteria for good articles, depending on the content of the article. There clearly needs to be a balance, however as I said, it's not a really big issue for this article as thebalance is nearly struck. Well since you said that, prettiness doesn't really matter, I think we can settle on the third one, it seems pretty neutral and the image is focused and of a decent quality. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 16:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah the third one looks good. That and I think a backside picture would be worthwhile, laid out attractively. I'm not good at that, so I'm not doing it though. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, it appears the picture is in the critical reception box rather than the peripherals box! Is this on purpose?? --Tacita620 (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I added it to the reception section and tried to make it relate back to the text as the peripheral section already has an image. The first paragraph of the reception section mentions the change in dock connectors used and briefly outlines the implications. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 16:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 December 2012

In the peripherals section, it should be noted that the iPad (4th Generation) and the iPad Mini also use the Lightning Connector.

Alex.braley (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 06:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

GA mess

Not sure what is going on, but have tried to tidy up the GA reviews. The first one is recorded in the article history as a fail and I am trying to delete the second one now as the reviewer has retired and never really started it. When that is deleted it should be recoded at WP:GAN as needing review and not lost its place in the queue. AIRcorn (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I decided to withdraw the first nomination as the article was too unstable at the time and would probably instantly fail the article stability criteria. The second nomination, which was initiated by The Anonymouse was close as the reviewer retired, this prompted him/her to set up another nomination page. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:IPhone 5/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HectorAE (talk · contribs) 17:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial assessment

My first impression of this article is that it appears well-written and of appropriate length. It covers all the main aspects of the topic, and events such as the production strike are presented neutrally. Looking through the edit history, no severe editing conflict appears to be ongoing (though I do note that semi-protection has been applied). I do not see any obvious copyright violations or close paraphrasing.

Y This article does not meet any of the criteria for quickfail.

I now present a more thorough overview of the article's content. Any relevant Manual of Style guidelines or other policies are linked for convenience.

Writing quality and scope

This article as a whole is written in a straightforward, factual manner. The spelling and grammar are consistently correct. There are some opportunities for improvement, however, which I will go through section by section.

Lead section

The lead is, frankly, not ideal. The main issue is that it contains a substantial number of inline citations, which should not be included in the lead as its purpose is to summarize. I recommend that these be moved to the relevant parts of the article instead, or if they already are, removed from the lead.

The first lead paragraph seems to sufficiently indicate the scope of the article and summarize the distinguishing features of the phone. Perhaps a brief description of its commercial significance would be appropriate here.

The second lead paragraph is somewhat jarring, as to me it is not immediately apparent that it summarizes the phone's history, and appears to focus exclusively on the launch and pre-orders. It should perhaps be widened in scope to include more recent developments and/or the litigation section.

The third lead paragraph's content is appropriate but its grammar needs adjustment and some of the phrasing includes weasel words.

History section

This section as a whole is well-written. Its scope is appropriate. It offers a useful overview of the phone's initial release schedule and subsequent litigation. The Litigation section does require a {{main}} notice pointing to Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., however.

Production section

The grammar and sentence structure in this section need work. Its tone and style do not seem consistent with the rest of the article. The word "device" and the name "iPhone 5" are used in the same sentence more than once. There are noticeably few links. I notice a great deal of tense confusion, especially in the strike subsection. A simple copy edit may be necessary here.

Features section

Here, things get hairy. This section, which makes up the bulk of the article, includes the Operating system and software subsection. This subsection is clearly not in summary style, and goes into much greater detail than it should about new iOS 6 features. Its contents are more detailed than even the iOS 6 main article! It needs to be vastly reduced and the large amount of valuable description merged into the main article instead.

That said, the other subsections in Features are specific to the iPhone 5 only, and are written fairly well. The lead paragraph of the Hardware subsection could be broken up somewhat into different hardware details and revised for grammar.

Get Complete specification in Pakistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.120.71 (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Reception section

The first two subsections of this article are all right, though the second could use more links. The third is sorely in need of copy editing for grammar, and should be moved to the Features section. Just because the subsection's title includes the word "reception" does not mean it should be included here, for it has more to do with one of the phone's features (LTE support) than critical reception.

Verifiability

The article as a whole is well-referenced. There are very few "citation needed" tags. All quotations include inline citations.

Reference formatting

Inspecting the markup of this article, I note with satisfaction that all references have been properly cited with the appropriate {{cite}} templates and the major ones have been named in case of reuse. (This is not strictly required in good articles.) Well done.

Reliable sourcing

After reviewing and checking this article's sources, I find that they tend to be used well and appear reliable. There are no problems with sources such as CNET, Time, the BBC, and Apple's product statements. Although the policy advises caution when using blogs, I expect that in this case, tech blogs are appropriate sources. I find that citations for professionally published blogs such as Anandtech, Engadget, TechCrunch, and Gizmodo are primarily used for quotations from those sources in the Reception section, and elsewhere as secondary sources on the performance of particular hardware.

Original research

Despite the potential for original research in a topic like this, after carefully assessing this article, especially the Features section, I have not found any.

Neutral POV

This article conforms well to the neutral point of view policy. Statements of opinion made by outside sources are clearly labeled as such. In its entirety, this article does not appear slanted towards a particular viewpoint or agenda.

Litigation section

This section is neutral in tone, and accurately describes the ongoing patent suits between Samsung and Apple.

Quality control... section

The dispute itself is described neutrally here, though to make it more balanced perhaps further responses to the situation by Apple or Foxconn management could be collected.

Copyright and images

Within the text of the article, after searching through the cited sources, I found no evidence of close paraphrasing or missing attribution. A further copy and paste search of several significant segments of text within different sections verified that they were all unique. All of the images included with the article are used in accordance with policy.

Summary and conclusion

The iPhone 5 article is a competitive good article nominee, but, as it is now, I cannot say with certainty that it meets all of the good article criteria. It requires, in short, some limited copy editing, revision towards summary style, and rewriting of some sections for coherent tone.

On hold for a period of seven days, terminating on 13 January 2013, so the above recommendations can be carried out. - HectorAE (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Pass because the deadline has elapsed and the article has improved substantially. Good job YuMaNuMa and others for working hard to make this a well-referenced, neutral article. - HectorAE (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I'll do what I can to fix up the prose tonight, however I think you may need to quote a few less obvious issues as some of it seems quite subtle from what I can see, particularly in the third paragraph of the lead. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I took a stab and attempted to fixed some of the issues I assumed you were referring to, in the lead, history and production section. If that didn't rectify the issues then I'm afraid you may need to quote some of the issues. Hope that isn't too much of a problem for you. Anyways, thanks for the thorough review! YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I tried cutting down some of the info in the Software section and it's currently just about 2-3 lines longer than the software section of the iPhone 4S article. I hope that's enough as it's probably more difficult to choose which of the remaining info should be removed. From what I can see, the editor who wrote that section did an amazing job at describing the main features and didn't simply just list them all down. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Attempted to address all the issues, if there are any outstanding issues that have yet to be resolved, can you please quote it. Thanks! YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 00:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Issues with article

The article seems to have several issues with impartiality. In the first section, rather than a subsection, the article prominently features issues of the iPhone. Except for the scuffing and the purple hue in some photos that is actually common on many devices, the other issues are not common and it doesn't seem very objective to mention them when such minor criticisms are never mentioned on similar products. In the case of LTE issues, I have never heard of anyone having them, so it seems strange to have them featured on the summary of this article or on Wikipedia at all. Sources are not cited for this section, and if reliable sources exist, I'd like to know about them. It also seems as though the enormous section on Foxconn labor strikes is unnecessary and not relavent to an article about the phone itself. A few sentences might be useful, but the large sections seems excessive. Just my opinion. You may not agree, but I feel my opinion is impartial in this case. Lukemags (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually they (referring to "minor" issues) are, on the 3rd generation iPad article, which is currently considered a "good article", issues such as its incompatibility with other LTE networks and heat issue are mentioned and elaborated. The media seems to think these issues are severe enough to be covered hence as we have reliable sources on them, they are included in the article. You also may want to familiarise yourself with WP:MoS, it's a guide on how articles should be written, the first section or lead is written with the intent to summarise the rest of the article hence no reference is needed as it should be in the body. Also just because you haven't heard of something does not mean it doesn't exist, we have a wide range of reliable sources covering the device's compatibility issue with LTE networks thus it's included. Also, what occurred at the Foxconn factory is a direct response to the issues that iPhone 5 experience, such as the scuff hence its included in this article and no where else. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you cite the iPad as an example, but when I mean "similar products", I am referring to those not made by Apple. Apple experiences a more criticism than other manufacturers due to their intense public spotlight, issues with products made by other companies are not as commonly mentioned.Lukemags (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That can probably attributed to the fact that Apple products receive more coverage than any other product for better or worse. It's not our job to determine the ulterior motives of media organisation or their intent, we simply cover an issue if it's been widely covered and many of which, which are included in the article are. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Info Box Addition

I know the info box is long but the SAR on the phone should be included the same way it is on this page [Optimus G]

The SAR value for the phone is (1.25) Ear North America and 0.951 (Ear)Europe.Tompat22 (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 April 2013

I believe the iPhone 5 is almost exactly 16:9 (with the addition of one row of horizontal pixels when held in landscape orientation). The article suggests it has an aspect ratio of almost exactly 16:9 (with the omission of two horizontal rows of pixels). It's minor but when developing for iOS it is very important to distinguish the difference.

The math:

16/9 = 1.777

some common television resolutions:

1920/1080 = 1.777 1280/720 = 1.777

The iPhone 5:

1136/640 = 1.775

However if we subtracted one row of horizontal pixels from the iPhone 5:

1136/639 = 1.777

Therefore the iPhone 5 has ONE EXTRA row of horizontal pixels than it would if it were truly 16:9 Dfjosh (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Horizontal pixels would be on its long axis, would it not? So if it's missing two rows of horizontal pixels, then adding them back in gives 1138/640 = 1.778. Feel free to reopen the request if that's not right. Cheers, — Bility (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If you use more than 3 decimal places the answer is more obvious: 1138/640 = 1.778125 whereas 16/9 = 1.777776 and so does 1136/639 = 1.777776 Dfjosh (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is interesting, but we really need a reliable source that does the investigation and makes the conclusion for us. Without one, it would be considered original research and even the existing comment about "two rows" would need to be removed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"T-Mobile" not linked in this article

Under the section heading called "LTE reception and usability", T-Mobile has not been linked in this article. Please wikilink it only once. --24.6.164.7 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done: It was linked in the 2nd paragraph, but I went ahead and moved it to the first occurrence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I had missed spotting the link in that paragraph. Thank you. --24.6.164.7 (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)