Talk:Apple TV/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hello. I will be reviewing this article. Be aware that the process may take up to a week for me to get a thorough review. I know you have been waiting patiently, as I saw this at the back of the GAN backlog. Please be patient to allow me to give a thorough review. Thank you.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 18:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary Comments

 * Article is stable, and therefore passes #5 in the Good Article Criteria
 * Images are propperly tagged, and free images are used where possible. Images are relevant, so article also passes #6a and #6b.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 18:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * One fact tag was found in the Remote Control section. Please reference or remove statement.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 23:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

I am placing this article on hold pending the fixing of one fact tag in the "Remote Control" section. References are important!--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 21:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * minor MoS issues, such as: date linking. Minor prose issues, such as use of contractions, but, these issues aren't enough for me to fail the article on this criterion.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1 fact tag found in Remote Control section.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for one fact tag, which can be easily fixed.
 * I edited that paragraph. Parts of it were old news - meaning some of the challenges were corrected with later software updates.  And frankly I could not find a reliable source (e.g., aside from forums and hacker sites) that mentioned the limitations of the remote.  To a a degree, it's a little like people complaining that a Porsche 911 doesn't get good gas mileage when towing a trailer.  Sure the limited remote comes up, but it's tangential to the core of the article and the appliance.Mattnad (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for one fact tag, which can be easily fixed.
 * I edited that paragraph. Parts of it were old news - meaning some of the challenges were corrected with later software updates.  And frankly I could not find a reliable source (e.g., aside from forums and hacker sites) that mentioned the limitations of the remote.  To a a degree, it's a little like people complaining that a Porsche 911 doesn't get good gas mileage when towing a trailer.  Sure the limited remote comes up, but it's tangential to the core of the article and the appliance.Mattnad (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Warrior4321's comments
I'd like to add a few things that were not mentioned. Warrior 4321  03:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Wikilink Jeff Carlson leads to a disambiguation page.
 * The lead's second paragraph needs to be expanded, as the article constitutes of 33336 characters currently. According to WP:LEAD, the article should have two to three paragraphs.
 * Reference 127 is dead.
 * I think I've address all of these. The most obvious is the lead.  Let me know what you think. Mattnad (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I'm going to go ahead and Pass the article.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 01:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)