Talk:Samsung Galaxy S III/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ob tund  (talk · contribs) 00:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Status
''This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s). Any questions and comments concerning this table should be posed in Discussion subsection below.''

Discussion
''Please refer to issue by numbers. Eg., the second issue with 1a criterion is 1a2. For referring to issues in the Reprise review, please use "R" in front of the criterion number, ie: R1a2.''

1a12
 * "The S III was released by approximately 300 296 carriers in nearly 150 145 countries at the end of July 2012." Doesn't that imply the S III was not released before the end of July 2012? What's wrong with the current sentence? Point No. 5 has been addressed. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The current sentence apply that it will be release at the end of July 2012 and it is the end of July 2012, so tense must be changed. Ob tund Talk 15:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

1a14
 * "Samsung's intelligent personal assistant as response to Apple's Siri that can recognise eight." That makes no sense. What I'm saying is, the S Voice is Sammy's intelligent personal assistant capable of recognising eight languages, and it also serves as the company's response to the iPhone 4S's Siri. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not included the full quote which was "To complement the TouchWiz interface, the phone introduces S Voice, Samsung's intelligent personal assistant and response to Apple's Siri that can recognise eight languages including English, Korean and French." I have updated the note. GA reviewer - Ob tund Talk 15:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

1a21
 * Samsung has ..., and instead have incorporateed - why use "have" here? Also note the typo. --illythr (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed the typo, because using have states the "the group" Samsung did the action. GA Reviewer - Ob tund Talk 22:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As Samsung is referred to as a singular entity throughout the article, I think it should be "has" here as well, for consistency's sake. Sp33dyphil has already fixed the has/have inconsistency there. --illythr (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - but everything else needs to be changed in #21 - GA reviewer Ob tund Talk 00:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence now reads: "Samsung has abandoned the rectangular design that can be found on the Galaxy S and Galaxy S II, and instead has incorporated round corners and curved edges, reminiscent of the Galaxy Nexus." The only remaining difference to what is suggested at #21 is the "has/have" point, which, as we seem to agree, have been addressed. --illythr (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

1a22
 * 20 percent less power than its latter. - is that valid usage of "latter"? I'd suggest rewording to "According to Samsung, the Exynos 4 Quad doubles the performance of the S II's Exynos 4 Dual, while using 20 percent less power." --illythr (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so, latter means the end to beginning. I also believe it should state "S II" and then "the previous version." GA Reviewer - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 22:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean like this: "According to Samsung, the Exynos 4 Quad doubles the performance of the Exynos 4 Dual used in the SII, while consuming 20 percent less power than the previous version." The problem here is that there's one more version of the Exynos 4 Dual between SII and SIII. --illythr (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well what do you mean by there was more than one version of the Exynos four dual? - GA Reviewer <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 03:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's the "Exynos 4 Dual (Galaxy S II) and there's the "Exynos 4 Quad" (Galaxy S III). --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 04:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As listed here, after the Exynos 4 Dual 45nm which was used in the SII, there's an Exynos 4 Dual 32nm that was built in the Meizu MX. Thus, the Exynos 4 Quad is not the previous version of the SII's Dual. --illythr (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

1a23
 * There doesn't need to be a link between the two. The second sentence about the front-facing camera, of which there aren't a lot of info, is there to conclude the paragraph. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 06:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't flow well and needs to be reworked. GA reviewer - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 15:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps do an explicit subject switch: "The front-facing camera has a resolution of 1.9-megapixels and can record 720p videos." --illythr (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ GA Reviewer - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 08:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

1a26
 * Replace "has helped improve or maintained Samsung's market share" with "has helped Samsung consolidate its market share"? --illythr (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - GA reviewer <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 22:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

1a28
 * "…Samsung's market share is also climbing due to an "unprecedented" demand…" The word an would not normally be included if I was not elaborate on what the customers be demanding. "Across other Western European countries and Australia, Samsung's market share is also climbing due to "unprecedented" demand;" vs "Across other Western European countries and Australia, Samsung's market share is also climbing due to an "unprecedented" demand for the S III;" Ask yourself this "an unprecedented demand" for what? I think you didn't quite hit the bull eye's on this sentence. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 07:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe explain what that demand was? GA Reviewer - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 22:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is, by adding an, I'd need to elaborate on what the demand actually was, which I have done by add "for the S III". --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 04:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfect. GA Reviewer - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 04:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

1a31
 * "a numerous amount of critics" Not only is it unnecessary and awkward, but amount should also be number. The current sentence conveys the same message without the superfluous words. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 07:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I have updated it above - GA reviewer <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 22:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

1a32
 * "Though only a limited number of the white Galaxy S III 16 GB model were available" I think you'd be right if I had specified the number of Galaxy S III 16 GB, but I used the phrase "a limited number", making the subject singular. Thoughts? --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 07:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the number specified is "limited." GA Reviewer - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 22:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is, "a limited number" is singular, so were would be wrong in this context. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 22:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but by specifying "a limited number" you are saying more than one. GA Reviewer - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 03:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, "a limited number" acts as a collective noun, so I believe a singular verb applies, instead of a plural verb. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 04:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, when collective nouns, are preceded by "a", it is treated as a plural word. And it was already completed. GA Reviewer - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 04:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

1b1
 * I don't think there are any restrictions regarding the number of wikilinks in references, since a reader wouldn't normally read the refs in order from first to last. I've also been wikilinking everything in the refs in other articles and the point hasn't been raised before. I'm not sure how this article is different from iPhone 4S regarding wikilinks. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 02:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To me it seemed over linked. There should only be one source maybe two in somecases, none of them should be side by side, unless it is needed. Giving three different sources to the same information is meaningless if you know what I mean. The iPhone 4S page has 2 sources a few times and three once or twice, but S III's page has many more than that. In total the iPhone 4S page has 65 sources, while S III's page has 221 sources. Each of the pages are about equal in length (plus or minus), and a majority of the sources on S III's page are uneeded. GA reviewer <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 03:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you guys be talking past each other here? Obtund means the overuse of references, whereas Sp33dyphil seems to discuss wikilinks in the refs. I agree with Obtund here - simple uncontroversial facts like company statements or past release dates don't need more than one ref to back them up. --illythr (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just believe that 217 references is a little bit too much. GA Reviewer - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 04:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

1b2, 4, 6-9, 12-13
 * Another point, I'm not sure how adding "2012" after dates would help, since the reader should be able to figure out that the phone was launched in May 2012, and thus every significant event would've taken this year. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 02:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By following WP:MOS, the reader may have lost track of the year, and so forth. It also has to be this way so it isn't confused with other years. GA reviewer <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 03:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "the public that the 21 June release would proceed as planned." I've already included the year for the previous mention of "21 June" -- I totally cannot see how that can be remotely confused with other years.
 * If you can find something in WP:MOS that allows that then go ahead, but I can't find it. An example would be the iPad 3, every date/month has a year next to it. GA Reviewer - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 16:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By putting the in front of 21 June, I am referring to the US release date that was mentioned previously. This is unlike the iPad article in that the authors didn't make any references to earlier dates -- all the dates on the article are different. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 06:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MOS, you need to state the year. GA reviewer - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 15:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems we're at an impasse -- I'm proposing that we invite a third-party to resolve this issue. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 06:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't believe that bring this to a dispute noticeboard is necessary. GA Reviewer - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 16:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The year is already clearly implied -- please show me where WP:MOS calls for the inclusion of year in every date? --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 07:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * From Wikipedia:MOSNUM, "Yearless dates (5 March, March 5) are inappropriate unless the year is obvious from the context." It requires it. Maybe not if the date is in the same sentence but it still applies. GA Reviewer - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 15:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1b6 and 1b8 use the definite article to link to a specific date with a year, thus providing the necessary obvious context. 1b12 does need the year, though. It should be also split off into a separate paragraph, because it changes topic from market share analysis to the launch event. --illythr (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1b6 needs it and 1b8 does not. I never disagreed to 1b12. GA Reviewer - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 21:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1b6 clearly refers to the date stated just a sentence ago. As it is also the only date in that range, I think that the Viewers Are Goldfish trope should be defied here, for the good of all. As for 1b12, I was actually agreeing with you there. --illythr (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well by Viewers are goldfish, we should have it every time if you know what I mean. But all that needs it is 1b6, 1b8 I can see being obvious. GA Reviewer - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 02:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

2a1
 * Strange, I'm reading Reference 18 at the moment. You're sure there's nothing out of line with your browser? According to, there aren't any dead links. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 05:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's odd, it works now. <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 13:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

2b2
 * I can't any sources that say 296 carriers have released the S III in in 145 countries, simply because a company wouldn't announce such a development. Therefore, I'm going to say that the phone has been released by approximately 300 carriers in nearly 150 countries by the end of July 2012, because I can be fairly sure that it is true, although I don't know the exact number of carriers and countries. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 02:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - GA reviewer <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 03:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

2bX→3
 * In regards to the battery life of the S3 and HTC One X variants - I can say with confidence that the statement "it has twice the battery life compared to the HTC handset", referring to the S3 and HTC One X, is misleading and controversial. Of the three sources they cite, only one found a 100% difference and their test was limited to quad-core phones playing continuous video. Their other source, Tech Radar, report a 37% difference, not 100%. I did not check their 3rd source, but would suggest making a more neutral battery life statement and perhaps pointing to a site such as gsmarena. They also have a S3 specific page, but it does not mention the HTC. I cannot find any battery test results for the dual-core S3. Molecbiolograd07 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that information. I have not gotten to that part of the article yet, but I appreciate the heads up! GA reviewer - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 18:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have noted it above that it should describe the testing situations. GA Reviewer - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 00:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

3b1
 * I didn't remove everything, as the event was specially geared towards the launch of the S III, whereas the One X and other phones were revealed at the World Mobile Congress or CES. In addition, an explanation is provided after the sentence in question, so some context must be provided. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 07:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - GA reviewer <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 15:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

6a2
 * The previous image was removed because I uploaded it without knowing that such an image (which consisted prominent copyrighted works) was not in the public domain. This photo, however, doesn't feature copyrighted works. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 06:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the cube in the background copyrighted? GA Reviewer - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 13:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's not the focal point of the photo, so no infringements there. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 07:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter if it is the focal point or not? GA Review - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 21:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's why the previous photo was removed -- because its focal point is a copyrighted work. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 03:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

1a33
 * Are you implying that, even though the word latter exists, it cannot be used? This is not Simple English Wikipedia. I have altered one instance of the word, but I'm not changing the other. If you insist, provide an alternative to "The South Korean version is a hybrid of the 4G-capable and international versions by incorporating the latter's hardware and the former's LTE support." that is not awkward. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 08:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody knows what the latter is for the last time. Above I thought it was the S II but it was a processor. You need to specify! I am also seeing some WP:OWN with this article by the way. GA Reviewer - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 15:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How? I said I wouldn't alter the sentence myself, because I have no improved alternative for it -- I'm happy to see others change the sentence for the better, if they know a way of getting rid of "the latter" without making it worse. I didn't, and don't, have any problems with other users editing the article, and was happy to address most of your, and others', issues. I just happen to disagree with several of your points. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 21:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just change latter to a what the latter is. GA reviewer - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 21:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Latter" here is the "international version [of the SIII]". How about this: The South Korean version is a hybrid model, incorporating LTE support of the the 4G-capable version and the hardware of the international S III variant. The international version should also probably be mentioned before the LTE one in that para, because it was released first. --illythr (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't matter just get rid or the word "latter." GA Reviewer <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 16:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * *shrug* Looks like the L-word's completely absent from the article now. --illythr (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Poor quality references
 * I am surprised that the article got through relatively unscathed w.r.t. the references used. Having looked there are a large number of very poor references used - websites that are little more than blogs or reposters. A good example would be the recently-added reference on motoringcrunch.com. I don't see how that site could pass WP:RS. To me this article is nowhere near GA quality. It has lots of references, but a good percentage of them are simply worthless. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't gone through the references yet, I was going to do that after we figured out all the issues listed above. As I noted the article is way overlinked, and I don't think reviewing all 217 refs would be productive when many of them will be deleted. Thanks for the heads up! GA Reviewer - <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 07:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have been through and tagged a number of the references (approximately 10% of the total), along with reasons, that I feel are dubious. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

R6a2
 * Really? I thought says that if a logo or trademarked work is not the focus of an image, or does not take up much of the photo, the presense of said work is fine. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 05:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion
 * When's the GAN gonna be closed? Everything has been addressed. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 05:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but so much has been changed, it needs to be reassessed. It will only take a day or two. <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 03:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)