Wikipedia:Peer review/Apple Inc. litigation/archive1

Apple Inc. litigation
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it was last assessed 2 years ago and I've changed its content significantly. I am aiming for GA status for this article and would like some peer feedback. Thanks, Sctechlaw (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments wow, monster article! And a decent one at that." The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead is too short, four paras for an article of this length would be expected.
 * Lead image caption is quirky, needs to be more explanatory, and doesn't need a full stop in its current form.
 * Wouldn't Bloomberg Television be a better link than "Bloomberg news"?
 * I rarely see UK written as U.K.
 * " iTunes tracks sold in the U.K" followed two sections later by "cut the price United Kingdom consumers ". Would use "United Kingdom" the first time and the abbreviation subsequently.
 * Which? is normally Which?.
 * iPhone could be linked first time in the "Apple and AT&T Mobility antitrust class action" section but instead it's linked first time in the "iPad and iPhone privacy issue class action" section.
 * "of the apps", however, the sui" think "however" should be a new sentence.
 * You link US$ seven times in one section which is somewhat overkill...!
 * US$.99 or 99¢? Be consistent.
 * "In 2004, independent Apple resellers filed a lawsuit against Apple alleging Apple used misleading advertising practices with resellers by using unfair business practices that harmed reseller sales while boosting Apple-owned outlets, in effect by favoring its own outlets over those of its resellers" reseller is used four times and Apple four times in this single sentence!
 * "Apple and Dr. Sagan " suddenly he's Dr. Sagan. Stick with one term for him and be consistent.
 * " (see List of Apple codenames)." I don't like this sort of "see also". You could pipelink that article to the first use of "codename" (and be consistent with the spacing).
 * Yep, I've found a UK now, so please be consistent throughout and (in my opinion) use UK.
 * "Apple Corps alleged Apple's introduction " add Computer > "Apple Corps alleged Apple Computer's introduction ".
 * " the name 'Apple' " vs "related to "Apple" ", be consistent with the punctuation.
 * "a "token payment" in " why the italics?
 * "name he'd registered" avoid contractions.
 * Even more linked US$...
 * Last sentence of the Woolworths section is unreferenced, and what was the conclusion to this? If still ongoing it should be noted.
 * "name - which is iPod spelled backwards - is " should use en-dashes instead of hyphens here.
 * Link Microsoft the first time.
 * "(see also object file)" is this necessary? If it is, then perhaps say "object code including object files" or similar.
 * "and 5 other pending " five.
 * " High Tech Computer Corp. in " put (HTC) after the company name.
 * Don't overlink Samsung.
 * [162][165][166][167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] remove spaces between refs.
 * "Against the dramatic backdrop" reads a bit journalistic.
 * " iTunes End user license agreement" no need for capital E.
 * See also needs a bullet point.
 * Don't mix date formats in the refs.
 * Be consistent with leading zeros for days/months in ref dates.
 * for PDFs, use  in the refs.
 * Author names, either First Last or Last, First. Be consistent.
 * Is it "Johnson iTunes Settlement" or "johnsonitunessettlement.com"?
 * New York Times should be The New York Times.
 * Ref 43 (for instance) needs an en-dash for the page range.
 * Make sure all refs have titles, publishers, publication dates (if appropriate), access dates (if appropriate), authors (if appropriate) and works (if appropriate).
 * Make sure things like the NYT and Billboard etc are treated as works, i.e. in italics.
 * Don't need Apple Inc. as a cat because you have Apple Inc. litigation as a more refined one.

Oh, and I just saw this... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment from requester: All of the above reviewer's helpful suggestions have been implemented, save for enlarging the lead, which is underway. Once this is done, the peer review can close, or sooner, if needed. Thanks also to user Khazar2 for helpful suggestions. &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment from requester: All reviewers changes implemented. Thanks everyone. &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)