GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: HectorAE (talk · contribs) 17:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Initial assessment[edit]
My first impression of this article is that it appears well-written and of appropriate length. It covers all the main aspects of the topic, and events such as the production strike are presented neutrally. Looking through the edit history, no severe editing conflict appears to be ongoing (though I do note that semi-protection has been applied). I do not see any obvious copyright violations or close paraphrasing.
This article does not meet any of the criteria for quickfail.
I now present a more thorough overview of the article's content. Any relevant Manual of Style guidelines or other policies are linked for convenience.
Writing quality and scope[edit]
This article as a whole is written in a straightforward, factual manner. The spelling and grammar are consistently correct. There are some opportunities for improvement, however, which I will go through section by section.
Lead section[edit]
The lead is, frankly, not ideal. The main issue is that it contains a substantial number of inline citations, which should not be included in the lead as its purpose is to summarize. I recommend that these be moved to the relevant parts of the article instead, or if they already are, removed from the lead.
The first lead paragraph seems to sufficiently indicate the scope of the article and summarize the distinguishing features of the phone. Perhaps a brief description of its commercial significance would be appropriate here.
The second lead paragraph is somewhat jarring, as to me it is not immediately apparent that it summarizes the phone's history, and appears to focus exclusively on the launch and pre-orders. It should perhaps be widened in scope to include more recent developments and/or the litigation section.
The third lead paragraph's content is appropriate but its grammar needs adjustment and some of the phrasing includes weasel words.
History section[edit]
This section as a whole is well-written. Its scope is appropriate. It offers a useful overview of the phone's initial release schedule and subsequent litigation. The Litigation section does require a {{main}} notice pointing to Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., however.
Production section[edit]
The grammar and sentence structure in this section need work. Its tone and style do not seem consistent with the rest of the article. The word "device" and the name "iPhone 5" are used in the same sentence more than once. There are noticeably few links. I notice a great deal of tense confusion, especially in the strike subsection. A simple copy edit may be necessary here.
Features section[edit]
Here, things get hairy. This section, which makes up the bulk of the article, includes the Operating system and software subsection. This subsection is clearly not in summary style, and goes into much greater detail than it should about new iOS 6 features. Its contents are more detailed than even the iOS 6 main article! It needs to be vastly reduced and the large amount of valuable description merged into the main article instead.
That said, the other subsections in Features are specific to the iPhone 5 only, and are written fairly well. The lead paragraph of the Hardware subsection could be broken up somewhat into different hardware details and revised for grammar.
Get Complete specification in Pakistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.120.71 (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Reception section[edit]
The first two subsections of this article are all right, though the second could use more links. The third is sorely in need of copy editing for grammar, and should be moved to the Features section. Just because the subsection's title includes the word "reception" does not mean it should be included here, for it has more to do with one of the phone's features (LTE support) than critical reception.
Verifiability[edit]
The article as a whole is well-referenced. There are very few "citation needed" tags. All quotations include inline citations.
Reference formatting[edit]
Inspecting the markup of this article, I note with satisfaction that all references have been properly cited with the appropriate {{cite}} templates and the major ones have been named in case of reuse. (This is not strictly required in good articles.) Well done.
Reliable sourcing[edit]
After reviewing and checking this article's sources, I find that they tend to be used well and appear reliable. There are no problems with sources such as CNET, Time, the BBC, and Apple's product statements. Although the policy advises caution when using blogs, I expect that in this case, tech blogs are appropriate sources. I find that citations for professionally published blogs such as Anandtech, Engadget, TechCrunch, and Gizmodo are primarily used for quotations from those sources in the Reception section, and elsewhere as secondary sources on the performance of particular hardware.
Original research[edit]
Despite the potential for original research in a topic like this, after carefully assessing this article, especially the Features section, I have not found any.
Neutral POV[edit]
This article conforms well to the neutral point of view policy. Statements of opinion made by outside sources are clearly labeled as such. In its entirety, this article does not appear slanted towards a particular viewpoint or agenda.
Litigation section[edit]
This section is neutral in tone, and accurately describes the ongoing patent suits between Samsung and Apple.
Quality control... section[edit]
The dispute itself is described neutrally here, though to make it more balanced perhaps further responses to the situation by Apple or Foxconn management could be collected.
Copyright and images[edit]
Within the text of the article, after searching through the cited sources, I found no evidence of close paraphrasing or missing attribution. A further copy and paste search of several significant segments of text within different sections verified that they were all unique. All of the images included with the article are used in accordance with policy.
Summary and conclusion[edit]
The iPhone 5 article is a competitive good article nominee, but, as it is now, I cannot say with certainty that it meets all of the good article criteria. It requires, in short, some limited copy editing, revision towards summary style, and rewriting of some sections for coherent tone.
On hold for a period of seven days, terminating on 13 January 2013, so the above recommendations can be carried out. - HectorAE (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Pass because the deadline has elapsed and the article has improved substantially. Good job YuMaNuMa and others for working hard to make this a well-referenced, neutral article. - HectorAE (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Comments[edit]
I'll do what I can to fix up the prose tonight, however I think you may need to quote a few less obvious issues as some of it seems quite subtle from what I can see, particularly in the third paragraph of the lead. YuMaNuMa Contrib 05:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I took a stab and attempted to fixed some of the issues I assumed you were referring to, in the lead, history and production section. If that didn't rectify the issues then I'm afraid you may need to quote some of the issues. Hope that isn't too much of a problem for you. Anyways, thanks for the thorough review! YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I tried cutting down some of the info in the Software section and it's currently just about 2-3 lines longer than the software section of the iPhone 4S article. I hope that's enough as it's probably more difficult to choose which of the remaining info should be removed. From what I can see, the editor who wrote that section did an amazing job at describing the main features and didn't simply just list them all down. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Attempted to address all the issues, if there are any outstanding issues that have yet to be resolved, can you please quote it. Thanks! YuMaNuMa Contrib 00:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)