Talk:HTC One A9/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Esquivalience (talk · contribs) 20:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC) - updated 16:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Initial review notes: GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The lead is only two sentences long; it does not adequately summarize the main points of the topic.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Some of the work and publisher names are inconsistent.

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   There should be more information on the phone's features. Any other notable features of the phone's software? Currently, it mainly covers the specifications of the phone (coverage of the phone's audio would be nice). The reception section could incorporate more breadth of critics.

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   For the most part. However, there are no references indicating that the phone has been heavily criticized for being a clone of the iPhone 6. Also, covering HTC's denial of copying the iPhone next to it could give it undue parity.

• Reference 26 does mentions that the phone has been heavily criticized for being a clone of the iPhone 6. Ayub407^talk 07:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

2. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

3. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I will put this on hold for 10 days; the issues above are significant.

Specific issues

Development

• The internal specifications of the phone was revealed through the AnTuTu benchmark test. – The source states that the results were unofficial, and that "it might be best to take it with a grain of salt." May be worth rewording.

• Done. Can you check to see that it is correct now? Ayub407^talk 17:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• "hero product" – What is a "hero product"?

• Many websites and business websites says that HTC planned to launch the Hero product in October 2015. The only product launched by HTC on October was the A9. Ayub407^talk 06:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Specifications

• Reworded some sentences.
• Software can be expanded.

• I've expanded it. Ayub407^talk 06:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, I added a coverage for the sound. Ayub407^talk 07:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• HTC has committed to provide software updates for the unlocked variant of the phone within 15 days after the software update for the Nexus devices. – Explain. I'm guessing this means within 15 days after initial release by Google; if it is, then it should state that.

• It means that only. I've added "released by Google" at the end of the sentence. Ayub407^talk 06:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Reception

• Can be expanded. Instead of solely covering seemingly-random critic's reviews of the phone, summarize the many opinions on the phone and give examples from the most prominent critics.

• Most critics have different opinion of the phone. Not sure how to summarize it. Also, Engadget is prominent when it comes to smartphones reviewing. Ayub407^talk 07:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

References

• 1: From its title alone, "Trusted Reviews" is a dubious work; probably not RS.

• I've changed the source. Ayub407^talk 05:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In my opinion, Trusted Reviews is fine for articles about smartphones. sst✈ 14:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• 2: Android Police is fine, but it does appear to be a blog. More reliable source is preferred.

• It's a independent website only with a blog appearances. Ayub407^talk 05:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Handy reference table

As of this diff. Since most of these sources' publishers are obscure or not known for accuracy/factchecking, many of these will depend on the authors' credentials and reputation.

Y 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,, 15

Y 5,

N 2, 17

N 16,

I will pass this article if and only if the sources in the fourth section are replaced or can be proven reliable. The sources in the third section support statements that aren't challenged or likely to be challenged, but still are unreliable; many unjustified sources there will fail this article.

• For AndroidPolice (reference 2), the discussion states that the website is unreliable for video games reviews as the staff are not dedicated to it. The website in question here only support the statement of the article "it was officially announced on October 20, 2015". Moreover, the discussion was under the scope of videogames wikiproject and it does not state that the website unreliable for android devices. Ayub407^talk 06:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I have add another source to support Android Police's citation. Ayub407^talk 08:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I changed reference 16. Ayub407^talk 07:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Reference 17 changed. Ayub407^talk 07:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Reference 5 changed. Ayub407^talk 07:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not sure which part of the fourth section (reception) you are talking about to change the source. But, I have changed the reference 30 & 31 to a more reliable source. Ayub407^talk 17:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I meant reference 32 & 33. Ayub407^talk 17:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Notes

• @Esquivalience and Ayub407: any update on this? It's been a week since the article and this talk page were last updated. sst✈ 02:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@SSTflyer:, I fixed everything what the reviewer pointed out. I'm just waiting for his review. Ayub407^talk 06:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Opps, didn't noticed that he already posted below. Ayub407^talk 06:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Handy reference table II

As of this diff.

Y 1, 3-33

Y 2

N

N

• The sources look good so far, so criterion 2b pass. Esquivalience ^t 02:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Does the article pass overall? Ayub407^talk 06:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It is still far from passing criterion 3a; it still seems like a Start or C-class article in terms of comprehensiveness. See Wikipedia:Good articles/Engineering and technology, under "Hardware, standards and protocols"; and see also similar articles such as HTC Dream and HTC One (M7) – they place their subject in context and do not leave a reader with important questions on them. Specific comments:

• HTC's financial struggle has been discussed considerably in sources; some context would be useful.
• The software section is deficient. There are about four short paragraphs discussing the phone's software, only some actually discussing the phone's key software features.
• The hardware section is fine.
• The development section needs significant expansion; incorporate more information that gives context to the history and development of the phone.

– Esquivalience ^t 16:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll expand the expand the article even further. Ayub407^talk 19:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll place this on hold for another 14 days (to accommodate your semi-wikibreak). Esquivalience ^t 03:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Esquivalience: Thank you so much for giving me more time. :) I have expanded the content of the article as you said above. Please see this diff. Ayub407^talk 11:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

After the improvements, I believe that it now passes criterion 3a, and thus the good article criteria. Well done. Esquivalience ^t 22:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you and non of this would be possible without your help. I'll be looking forward to collaborate with you again. Ayub407^talk 08:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)