Talk:Asus ZenFone 6/GA1

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

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 08:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This one has been sitting around long enough. I'll be happy to review it. Will post initial feedback in the next few days. Larry Hockett (Talk) 08:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Preliminaries: The article appears to be neutral and stable. Earwig's tool returns nothing of concern for copyvio.

Lead

 * Change Zenfone to ZenFone in the second sentence just for consistency.
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Asus released in that country" - Feels like we're missing words here. Asus released the ZenFone 6 in that country ...
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "a larger 6.4 inches (160 mm) display, a faster processor and upgraded cameras" - I assume we are making these comparisons to this model's predecessor, but we should clarify that.
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Asus has not released sales figures" - As of when?
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

History

 * "There were many alleged leaks" - this doesn't seem supported by the sources. The first two sources discuss one leak. I can't see the third source (my browser is not displaying it due to a site security issue), but it looks like it's only discussing one additional leak.
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "a resolution by it board of directors" - its board of directors (if I am understanding correctly)
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "The initial international release of the ZenFone 6 was staggered and drawn out" - The description of the timing seems too vague to be helpful.
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Will come back for more. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

History (cont'd)

 * " Even after its release, many models sold out quickly in the United States." - I don't think you need the first part of the sentence. Most consumer products sell out after release (rather than before release).
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "claiming the update triggers" - change to "saying the update triggers" per WP:SAY.
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Features

 * For the lay reader, what is the PCB?
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Reception

 * "The device overall was more well-received than the previous few generations." - I'm not seeing where the cited source mentions overall reception.
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Same thing in the next paragraph. There is no source saying the flip camera's reception was mixed. It seems like that is our own assertion based on two individual reviews, and I'm not even sure how notable these reviewers/publications are in the technology world.
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Will continue later with assessment of the references and the article's breadth. Thanks for your work so far. Larry Hockett (Talk) 10:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Continuing on
Please address those last couple of bullets from the Reception section. I also see a couple of things that I did not notice on the first read.


 * In the Release section, "plagued with" seems POV. A company can experience inventory issues without being plagued with them, and we shouldn't make that distinction on WP unless there is sourcing for it.
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * In the Features section, the link to Good Design Award goes to a disambiguation page, and there may not be enough info for the reader to determine which award is being referenced.
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Same sentence - the period has been placed after the citation.
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * There is another example of "claims" in the Reception section; see WP:SAY.
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The last sentence of the Reception section ends with a comma.
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

 * The infobox is nearly as long as the article. I know that infoboxes are subjects of contention on Wikipedia and that normally MOS:INFOBOX is not one of the key aspects of a GA review. Still, this one makes the article harder to read. If we could follow the MOS:INFOBOX guidance that the infobox should "summarize (not supplant)" the information in the body of the article, it would make for a more well-written entry.
 * See below.--17jiangz1 (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Specifically, it looks like almost all of the features in the Features section were pasted into the infobox without thinking about their importance to this model.
 * ✅,I have cut down some of the infobox fields, but I believe a relatively longer infobox is justified in this case as "key specialised information [that] is difficult to integrate into the body text", and to be consistent and easily comparable with other mobile phone infoboxes when viewing key features.--17jiangz1 (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * There is also some redundancy in the infobox. If the reader gets to the fifth line of the infobox, he or she should already be 100% clear that we are discussing an Asus ZenFone.
 * ✅, cut some redundancy--17jiangz1 (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Under Operating System, how do I know that Current is really current? See WP:WTW.
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The infobox references are not so helpful. For a reader to verify a specific fact in the infobox, it seems impractical to sift through 21 references.
 * ✅, cut down on some redundant general references, moved some specific sources into relevant sections.--17jiangz1 (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Some loose ends
Thanks for addressing my feedback thoroughly. I looked at a few other GAs in the technology realm, and it seems like many of them do use a longer infobox than what we see in some other areas of WP. I appreciate your work with the infobox references. It is easier to make out the sourcing. I think we are fine there now. I made a few edits for small issues like overlinking. A few other (mostly minor) things:
 * In the Release section, Liquid Metal is capitalized, but it is lowercase in the Design section. I realize that there is a separate use for liquidmetal (one word), but I think both the two-word uses here may be referring to the same thing.
 * ✅, de-capitalised, official use seems to use the term not as a proper noun. --17jiangz1 (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * In the Successor section, there is one use of form-factor as a hyphenated word, but I think you have it right in the other sections, where this is two separate words.
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * In the Design section, you have micro stepper motor and also a hyphenated version of that phrase.
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I realize that it has >6M subscribers, but I don't know if the JerryRigEverything YouTube channel can be considered a reliable source. Is this someone who is considered a subject matter expert outside of YouTube?
 * ✅, removed reference and sentence as they was redundant.--17jiangz1 (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your work so far. I am going to take one more read of the article, but I think we are almost there. Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Thanks to the nominator for the diligent work. I am passing this one now.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Spot checks of references turned up no inconsistencies or copyvio issues.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Appears to cover the major aspects of the topic in proportion to the existing coverage in reliable sources.
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images have appropriate captions and rationales.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)