Wikipedia:Peer review/Android (operating system)/archive1

Android (operating system)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… I think it's up for GA

Thanks, Greg   Heffley   22:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Greg: Can you clarify a bit ... the GA process include a review comparable to a Peer Review.  What specifically is your goal for this PR?  I wouldn't mind doing this PR, but I'd like some clarification first.  Thanks,  --Noleander (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The peer review is for major mistakes in the article. Greg  Heffley   23:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on the article, which is interesting but choppy. I learned a lot about Android reading this and the other article on it that I peer reviewed. I am not an expert on Android and so doubt if I would find a major mistake, but I can point out some places where the article could be improved. Here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A mdoel article is useful for ideas and examples to follow, There are several FAs at Category:FA-Class Computing articles that may be useful models, including Opera (web browser) which seems like it would be a useful model.
 * Several dead links here
 * The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD - for one thing it is five paragraphs and WP:LEAD says not to go over four.
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nNothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. Refs 7 through 23 are used in the lead, but only 4 fo those are used again the article.
 * The lead does not have to have references except for direct quotes and extraordinary claims - the idea is that everything in the lead is also in the body of the article, and the ref can be in the body too.
 * My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but some section headers like Privacy do not seem to be in the lead.
 * The prose is very choppy and does not flow well. There are many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and several short (one or two paragraph) sections. IN moist cases these should be combined with others to improve flow, or even expanded if needed.
 * The article reads more like a series of lists than a polished piece of prose - does Retail stores really need its own one sentence section at this point? I would convert most lists to prose.
 * The use of bold font in the Features section does not follow WP:ITALIC
 * Avoid vague time terms like "current" or currently or today or now if at all possible. Current features and specifications can quickly become out of date - better to say something like "as of December 2011"
 * Watch WP:OVERLINKing - terms are generally linked once in the lead and once in the body, at first mention. Andy Rubin is linked twice in the body.
 * Also the MOS says once a person is introduced using their full name, the article typically refers to them by their last name only (unless there are two or more people with the same last name, or someone who goes by their first name). See Rubin and the other founders
 * Figure in Usage share needs a caption / explanatory text
 * The chart in the same section is also not super clear to me - more explanation helps. See WP:PCR and provide context to the reader.
 * Any free images of any of the people involved in this that could be used? Variety in images makes an article look more interesting and this has lots of screen shots so variety would help spice it up.
 * Per WP:See also, links in this section are generally not also in the article (but Google Chrome is linked in the article already)
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)