Wikipedia:Peer review/IPod/archive1

iPod
Please review this article and advise on any problems or issues that need fixing. Please comment on the Industry impact section since it has just recently been added. Also, are there any problems with prose or article length? --IE 18:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You may want to review this version here, from 30 December 2006.
 * Previous peer review from May 2006 is here.

Got a Nano for xmas and it's awesome so I'll comment here
 * 1) Lots of short paragraphs, esp the lead, remove, merge or expand
 * 2) There are whole sections that are unreferenced. I'm not saying they might need references but if this goes for FA. people are more likely to vote no, so try add some more if you can.
 * 3) Alphabetize categories, only one needs moving
 * 4) Apple iPod - Sound and Hearing - Apple - Sound and Hearing, remove the black text as this is redundant and on the first link name it 'Official Apple website' or something similar
 * 5) Knowledge Base website., external link in the middle of text
 * 6) Another external link, Pat-rights
 * 7) Industry impact is full of external links O.O
 * 8) try and make that timeline smaller so there is no horizontal scroll, as it will go off some peoples browsers. - I'm not sure about this one. The page fits on a 1024*768 display even when the browser window is about 900 pixels wide horizontally. Isn't this sufficient?
 * 9) There are 4GB Ipod nanos - These are already mentioned in the article, I think
 * 10) The cite web template should be used so all references are kept constant and contain the same information,  - We're using Harvard referencing, since the article size is quite large already. The article refs can still be cleaned up though and made more consistent.
 * comments were rearranged by User:IE.

And thats about it. M3tal H3ad 03:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, M3tal H3ad. A few more questions:
 * What's wrong with using external links? I thought they were allowed? Is it incorrect to mix with external links? Some of the sentences with external links are not really citing anything, they are just guiding the reader to an external web page. That's why those external links exist (they also help to reduce article size if they are kept as external links).
 * Any comments on article content? Are all the important topics covered? Are the criticisms fair and balanced? Any vague sections? --IE 23:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, external links are okay, but it's better if they are integrated with the text. (Google, not ). But now that I've seen how cite disrupts the flow of the text when editing, please, get them out of there!--HereToHelp 23:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * External links are ok at the end of the article, but not in the middle of the text. With Industry impact you can easily convert the links to references after each comma, when mentioning the award. Article size isn't a big issue when it comes to references, Megadeth was recently promoted to FA and is 75KB, because of references.
 * More information about all released iPods is available on Apple's Knowledge Base website. This sentence should be removed, it's not reading like a encyclopedia and is just tagged on the end.
 * ,available for a short time. change short to 'limited' and that might need a reference. M3tal H3ad 02:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Macintosh has about half the footnotes that this one has, and it's featured...but it also has book sources that cover the entire article. iPods are too new to have book sources, so instead we have a million footnotes. The real test of length is whether or not it feels long.--HereToHelp 15:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also: You said that the categories need to be alphabetized. I think they already are, with the numbers before the letters. The only thing is that since this is the main article for the iPod category, it should be first.--HereToHelp 15:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.[?]
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: aluminium (B) (American: aluminum), meter (A) (British: metre), organize (A) (British: organise), ization (A) (British: isation), cosy (B) (American: cozy), program  (A) (British: programme).
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 28 additive terms, a bit too much.
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * Avoid using contractions like: isn't.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]