Talk:IPad Pro (5th generation)/GA1

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

Reviewer: PhotographyEdits (talk · contribs) 13:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi ! This will be my first GA review ever, so please let me know when I'm wrong.

For comparisons, I looked at some articles that already passed the WP:GA review, such as the iPad (3rd generation) and the iPad (4th generation) articles.

I'm not entirely sure if it's already possible to get it passed as a WP:GA, because it's a pretty new devices so there isn't a lot yet about the reception of the device.

Infobox

 * I'm not exactly sure whether the image in the infobox falls within fair use. The images used in the other articles are self-made, not from Apple. Something self-made if likely preferred, but the device isn't available yet so it makes sense for now.

Lead

 * Seems too shorts. It should be a summary of the entire article, so that should include some more info about the hardware, software and announcements.

History

 * There should be a history paragraph, describing something about the predecessors, announcement, launch.

Design

 * Seems okay

Specifications

 * "automatically u to keep" -> remove u
 * Some info not cited inline.

Accessorizes
h h h h h g l g±−01:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)01:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC) jn h ''
 * Add some more details about them. Like, how you can use the cover by folding or what kind of port should be used hh h hjb h

jj h https://www.google.com/search?q=what+year+did+iPad+Pro+11-inch+2nd+generation+come+out&rlz=1CBLAYK_enUS967US967&sxsrf=AOaemvIFWX5Vku4QjwWPv06hxgKv_8JtlQ%3A1632444983670&ei=NyJNYdeyKLCLwbkPx7W5qAE&oq=what+year+did+iPad+11+inch&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQEkoECEEYAFAAWABg7E1oAHACeACAAQCIAQCSAQCYAQCgAQY&gs_ivs=1&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#tts=0

n h h h h 888n8n. صص b h j  رظظغغككة ةةة ةييييي   h jh h b قق

Too soon
As PhotographyEdits notes in their third paragraph at the top, it is far too soon for this article to be considered as a Good Article. This is a product that is only about to start to ship: there aren't reviews (too early for a Reception section), no idea if the product has glitches, delivery issues, etc. I'm not familiar with the standard delay on tech articles after release before an article can reasonably said to be able to get all the data it needs, such as real-world functionality, availability, sales numbers, and so on. At present, it clearly fails the "broad in its coverage" part of the GA criteria.

PhotographyEdits, your review doesn't specifically mention the bulk of the GA criteria specifically; did you check them all? For example, there's no mention of doing a check for close paraphrasing or copyvio; you do mention the lead, which is part of the well-written criteria, but per MOS:LEADLENGTH in that section, an article that's 4305 prose characters should have a one to two paragraph lead. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct, I actually spent a lot of time formatting it. I guess I will have to wait a decade before it is considered "detailed". Wingwatchers (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * At least wait until it has been released and there are some reviews and such. I don't think a decade is right, but it would need to at least have reviews about it. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have failed the nomination, because I agree that it fails to meet the WP:WIAGA criteria, especially point 3. I hadn't checked for copyvio yet, was planning to add that later. But now the article has failed the nomination I am not going to check for that now. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's very disappointing to hear, but I agree with you. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)