Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HTC One/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:GrahamColm 10:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC).

HTC One

 * Nominator(s): ViperSnake151   Talk  05:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Me and several over editors have put a lot of time and effort into this article. I got it up to Good status, and even after a peer review where literally nothing happened, a few more editors joined in to make further improvements to the article. But now, I think we're ready for the big time. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose for now, pending the changes below. In restrospect, there are too many issues that would need to be addressed for me to even re-consider my stance. (edit) As the primary contributor of the Samsung Galaxy S III article, I can identify several similarities between that particular article and this. It takes a lot of effort in researching about a topic like phones and following up by writing and polishing an article such as this one. I wish you all best in your effort to get this to FA -- let's hope this would be the first phone article to get that distinction. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Recommend withdrawal This article has not been adequately prepared for the FAC process. While the article has been expanded, the references cleaned up, and the prose improved, there exist several issues that I believe cannot be adequately addressed in a reasonable amount of time. The article still lacks coverage in terms of software and sales, and could benefit from a third-party copy-edit, with a particular focus on "Reception", which I think could be synthesized to remove simply superfluous statements and duplication. For now my job here has come to an end. I would be happy to participate in a future FAC if this article is renominated. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your assessment and suggestions for improvement. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please fill out all your references. There are numerous references that are missing the author names and the dates of publication. Please stick to one date format.
 * Addressed. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Either include the publishers in all the references or, leave them out.
 * Addressed. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please collapse the "Rear camera" and "Connectivity" features in the infobox.
 * Agreed to keep the infobox as is. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I would replace File:HTC One Diagonal View.jpg with File:HTC One black.png as the infobox photo, and move File:HTC One Diagonal View.jpg to "Reception" where you could, in the caption, talk about how premium the finished product is.
 * Not yet. File:HTC One black.png is very similar to File:HTC One.png -- I would remove the former, and reinstate File:HTC One Diagonal View.jpg under "Reception" where it would nice complement the positive reviews about its hardware. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Addressed below. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "high-end Android smartphone produced by the Taiwanese company" Please define "produce". My understanding is that HTC, like Apple (through Foxconn), outsources the main manufacturing job to another company. If HTC is the designer and manufacturer of the One, please say so in the lead.
 * Not done. Again, "developed" is ambiguous. Is HTC the designer and manufacturer of the One? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Addressed below. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "on February 19, 2013 in New York City, as HTC's 2013 flagship smartphone, and is the successor to HTC's 2012 flagship smartphone," --> "on February 19, 2013, in New York City as HTC's 2013 flagship smartphone, and is the successor to the company's 2012 flagship model," Repetition. Make sure that all dates are followed by commas.
 * Addressed. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * " its next flagship device in order to make"
 * Addressed. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "80 regions and countries" --> "80 countries and regions"
 * Addressed. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "pushed as far back as April" The way it's written tells me it's not really a significant delay. Say "late April" or something like that.
 * Addressed. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "For 2013, HTC planned to double its marketing budget in comparison to 2012." --> "Consequently, HTC doubled its marketing budget in 2013 as compared to 2012."
 * " networks (however" remove brackets and replace the opening bracket with a semi-colon. "LTE networks; however, it does not support T-Mobile's AWS-based HSPA+ services."
 * "The One was released by AT&T (with exclusivity on the 64 GB version) and Sprint in the United States on April 19, 2013." --> "AT&T (who had exclusive selling rights to the 64 GB version) and Sprint released the One in the United States on April 19, 2013."
 * Reworded. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "The HTC One was released on Australia's major carriers on April 23, 2013." --> Either mention the major carriers or simplify the sentence to "The HTC One was released in Australia on April 23, 2013."
 * Perhaps you could merge the third paragraph under "Release delays" into the first ie "Sprint and AT&T (who had exclusive selling rights to the 64 GB version) released the One in the United States on April 19, 2013; Verizon Wireless was the last major US carrier to offer the One, having finally released it on August 22, 2013."
 * Reworded. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "Android 4.2.2 in select regions" --> "Android 4.2.2 in selected regions"
 * Not done. "have been released in select regions."
 * Addressed below. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 00:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "camera module that contains a custom UltraPixel image sensor, which contains pixels that are 2.0 µm in size." --> "camera module that contains a custom UltraPixel image sensor, which is composed of pixels that are 2.0 µm in size." Repetition.
 * Reworded. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "While most high-end smartphones used 8- or 13-megapixel cameras at the time of the One's release, the size of the pixels in their sensors have ranged from 1.4 to 1.0 µm, both of which are considerably smaller in size." --> "While the One's competition typically use 8- or 13-megapixel cameras, their sensors ranged in size from 1.4 to 1.0 µm, both of which are considerably smaller than that of the UltraPixel sensor."
 * Not done. Compared to the current wording, my suggestion can shave off 13 words. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Link over-the-air update
 * Addressed. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "Taking advantage of this ability, " --> "To exploit this ability"
 * Reworded. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please put "" around award names.
 * Addressed. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * " publicly favored"
 * Addressed. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 00:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please italicise the names of technology publications, where needed.
 * Please include this review by David Pogue in the article.
 * Addressed. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If I were you, I would replace AnandTech's review with that of TechRadar's, which is much more detailed and, in my opinion, more professional
 * I would keep the reference to AnandTech's award and merge it with the other awards to form a paragraph and move that paragraph to the end of "Reception", just above "Sales".
 * I wouldn't use iFixit as a source for the article. It is a niche website aimed a selected group of repairers. Wired seems like a much better mainstream substitute. You can keep iFixit, but keep it to a minimum.
 * Reworded. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please archive all the references using the WayBack Machine, or Archive.is, to protect the article from WP:LINKROT.
 * Addressed. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, we fixed just about all of those. ViperSnake151   Talk  15:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the reviews are quite lengthy. For example, "considered the HTC One to be a device that would "give HTC at least a few more weeks in the spotlight" in relation to the company's past success and recent struggles" is not significant, since any high-end phone like the One would give any company a few more weeks in the spotlight. Compared with Walt Mossberg's review, the one written by Pogue has got a lot of coverage. You need to cut a lot of the wording and synthesize the praise into several paragraphs, and maybe bring the criticisms under one. At the moment there is a lot of duplication. You could also get rid of the review scores.
 * Since lot of the reviews praise the industrial design, display and camera features (Zoe), I would merge them in one paragraph. In another paragraph I would talk about the quality of the speakers, the benchmark tests, and one or two other praise-worthy features. In the third I would bring all the criticisms together -- namely the battery life, the arrangement of the buttons, the lack of battery or storage flexibility, and the camera software features. I would also talk about the bloatware in this particular paragraph. At the moment "Reception" is just a collection of reviews sourced from different publications without any seamless integration.


 * Please add the subheading "Critical reception" under "Reception".
 * You haven't talked about the fact that the One is the first HTCpro Enterprise Certified device in the United States..
 * You could add the Citigroups' sales forecast for the One, the fact that the phone's outstripped sales of that of HTC's 2012 devices, yet still fails to revive HTC's overall sales numbers.

At the moment I am slightly leaning towards oppose, as I think the article has got several more issues. I would like to hear a few comments from one or two other un-involved reviewers, and see my points addressed, before I can shift my stance.--Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 07:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Replaced black front shot with File:HTC J One back.jpg, added File:HTC One on Apple keyboard.jpg, reformatted images
 * Replaced "developed" with "designed, developed, and manufactured"
 * Fixed "select regions" wording
 * For the rewording of the Ultrapixel sensor: there's a big difference here - the rewording makes the sentence inaccurate as it implies that the sensors are 1.4 to 1.0 µm, when it's the pixels that are that size. And "the One's competition" is unnecessarily vague and an awkward choice of words.
 * - M0rphzone (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn. ViperSnake151   Talk  15:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.