Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/IPhone 5S/archive2


 * 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 10:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC).

IPhone 5S

 * Nominator(s): Zach Vega  ( talk to me ) 22:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has improved substantially since the last FA. Issues have been added, and the reviews seem to be concrete now. The only thing that will be added in the future will be sales numbers. There's probably some minor grammatical and referencing issues that I've missed, although I've looked over them. Zach Vega ( talk to me ) 22:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose and suggest closure The consensus in the previous review (closed less than two weeks ago) seemed to be that a few months should pass before this topic is capable of meeting the FA criteria. Disappointing, the article still doesn't seem to have been fully updated since the last nomination as the "commercial reception" section is still focused on the first few weeks of sales and there's no mention of the news reports this week which have compared what seem to be disappointing sales of the 5C (though it's really too early to judge this) with strong sales of the 5S. Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Then what does "While commentators viewed the iPhone 5C as a flop because of supply chain cuts signifying a decline in demand, the iPhone 5S was viewed as a massive success" mean? Also, what would be contributed to waiting a "few months"? Zach Vega  ( talk to me ) 23:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I missed that - sorry. I'd suggest waiting until at least six months after the phone was publicly released. Nick-D (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose and likewise urge closure, without even having clicked through to the article itself. One of the FA criteria is stability.  A quick trip to Google News reveals stories from CNN to Bloomberg to the LA Times within the last 24 hours regarding sales information and changes in production trends for the iPhone 5C and 5S.  More than sales numbers will change here.  We'll get comparisons to other same-generation products, and, eventually, retrospectives.  There may be issues that emerge some time after release, as there have been with previous products.  This product was not even released two months ago; there is simply no way that I can be convinced an article about it can be deemed "stable" now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All that needs to be done is to add a sentence or two once new sales info or production trends come out. It's not going to require a fundamental restructuring of the article. Zach Vega  ( talk to me ) 23:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Due to the constantly changing sale numbers and reception, I agree with the notion that this article cannot be considered stable enough at this time. ViperSnake151   Talk  23:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's mostly just sales numbers. Zach Vega  ( talk to me ) 23:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Due to the fact that coverage continues to come in at a rapid rate, this should definitely sit for a period of time. I also strongly suggest getting a good article review and a peer review. I'm not convinced that it is "just sales numbers" that will be changing as time goes on.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 00:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What exactly will change other than that? Sure, you might have supply and production changes, but those are related to consumer demand. Zach Vega  ( talk to me ) 04:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - far too unsettled at this time. Apologies, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm honestly getting tired of seeing Apple related products being nominated for FAC almost immediately. GamerPro64  03:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This doesn't really say much about what's wrong with the article. Zach Vega  ( talk to me ) 04:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose and note that any immediate renomination will soon be treated as disruptive editing. --Rschen7754 04:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, what does this say about the article, other than to discourage people from working on it? Zach Vega  ( talk to me ) 04:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.