Wikipedia:Peer review/Asus ZenFone 6/archive1

Asus ZenFone 6


I've listed this article for peer review because I have created and improved the article to GA status, and would like to propose it for FA in the future.

Thanks, 17jiangz1 (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720
Hi, I'm sorry it has taken so long for someone to review this article. Please consider me a non-expert in this topic. I will review this as if it was an FAC.


 * In general, avoid one-sentence paragraphs per WP:PARAGRAPH
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "the following day.[16][1]" References should be in numerical order. Check this throughout the article.
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "Before the ZenFone 6 was teased at the" teased should not be used as it is jargon. Replace the word with what the executives did (maybe, "alluded to its existence"?)
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "Both leaked images" delete leaked, you already stated that they were leaked.
 * " an NT$6 billion restructure " what's a restructure?
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "Asus announced a launch date of May 16 that year for the phone" -> "Asus announced that the phone will be available for purchase on 16 May 2019."
 * ✅, reworded to unveiled as phone was not avalible for purchase until the following day--17jiangz1 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Be consistent about whether dates are dmy or mdy. Don't have June 1 but also 1 June 2019.
 * ✅ to dmy to fit Taiwanese convention--17jiangz1 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge the last two paragraphs of the "Background" section
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * There's MOS:SANDWICH with images and the infobox.
 * All of the information in the infobox needs to also be in the article. Is this the case? If not, you might need to add it to the article or delete it.
 * "The initial international release of the ZenFone 6," -> "For the initial international release"
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "or get stuck in a "bootloop"" describe what this is in the article.
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "An Asus representative attributed this behaviour to a hardware issue,[32][33] saying the update triggers a motherboard malfunction, the only solution to which was a motherboard replacement under existing warranty.[32][33]" Delete the first instance of [32][33]
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * " followed that of by Asus' ROG Phone II," "followed by Asus'"
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "In late August 2019, Asus began recruiting ZenFone 6 " delete began
 * ✅ reworded--17jiangz1 (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "a combination sliding-rotating" -> "a combined sliding-rotating"
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * A citation needed tag needs to be resolved.
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * In the design section, merge the short paragraphs.
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * " that has also been used in" -> "that was used in"
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "The ZenFone 6 was debuted alongside ZenUI 6, " -> "The ZenFone 6 debuted alongside ZenUI 6"
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Dark mode needs to be explained in the article so that a person doesn't need to click on the wikilink in order to understand what it is
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "reduced stock applications." I don't know what this is, this should be explained.
 * ✅ clarified--17jiangz1 (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * " Reviewers noted ZenUI 6 provides an experience closer to that of stock Android.[44][45] Reviewers also praised the relatively frequent software updates.[46]" Reviews should be in the Reception section.
 * ✅ moved--17jiangz1 (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Single-paragraph sections are discouraged on Wikipedia, per MOS:OVERSECTION
 * ✅ moved to be subsection--17jiangz1 (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "near-stock implementation of Android" again, I don't know what stock means
 * ✅ reworded--17jiangz1 (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "Asus said the device "has been well evaluated and created excellent sales"." I don't think we should include Asus's opinion on their product as it feel too WP:PROMO
 * I think the value of the opinion is not for their opinion on the product, rather their opinion of the launch's sucess and sales figures--17jiangz1 (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "The ZenFone 6 is one of the 2019 flagship devices that retained the headphone jack." This should be in the hardware section
 * ✅ reworded to be contextualised for the reception section--17jiangz1 (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "retained the headphone jack.[51][40]" Put references in numerical order
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "DxOMark camera score of 104," What does this mean?
 * ✅ elaborated--17jiangz1 (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "the highest for an Asus device.[52][51]" put refs in numerical order
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The reference section needs to be expanded, if possible. Are there other places where this device might have been reviewed? Check WP:RS/P for additional sources.
 * Seeking Alpha is not recommended as a reliable source, per Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289 and thus will not be considered a high-quality source in FAC.
 * Seeking Alpha is only used here for the earning calls transcript, which is not a crowd-sourced page and is produced by their in-house transcript team. Thus I believe it is appropriate in this case, as it is not one of their editorials as referred to on the noticeboard. --17jiangz1 (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * All sources that are news articles need an author and publication date, if possible.
 * ✅--17jiangz1 (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * FAC requires high-quality sources, which is a higher standard than a reliable source or the GA criteria. Please read User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You and evaluate every source in the article and make sure you can answer, "Why is this a high-quality source?" If a great answer can't be given, it should be removed.

I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

One additional comment: I strongly encourage all editors who want to nominate a featured article to review articles at WP:FAC. This will help you become familiar with the FAC process and comments you might expect when you nominate your article. This will also build goodwill, which makes it more likely that editors will review your article. Z1720 (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * to ensure that they saw the above comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to close this PR because the nominator has not responded to comments. Once the above are addressed they can open a new PR. Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)