Talk:LG G2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Telecommunications (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Not described as a phablet[edit]

Why is this smartphone not described also as a phablet due to its big screen size - 5.2" - which is between the sizes that define the size of a phablet that are 5-6.9 inches screen size? Isn't this smartphone a hybrid of both a smartphone and a tablet? Ram Zaltsman (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There have been some 5-inch phones that are not explicitly marketed as a phablet (such as the HTC Droid DNA). As sources do not refer to it as such, we cannot call it a phablet. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Both this review and this article refer to it as a "phablet".—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 16:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Network Compatibility[edit]

Regarding Network Compatibility being cruft. I disagree. People visit various countries and wonder what local providers are compatible with their phone (they don't want to be raped by the roaming fees). People buy phones in neighbour countries or while visiting. People also often buy grey-imported phones. Sometimes phones are compatible, sometimes not. Looking at the network compatibility table it's pretty easy to see compatibility. Saying that "exact band compatibility depends on models" is not very helpful. This information is scattered across various websites. Why not collect it here? If network compatibility is cruft why dimensions in millimeters and inches are not cruft? It's easy to find that elsewhere and easy to convert.

I have cut out of GSM and CDMA information now, as GSM is universally supported and CDMA technology does not allow switching providers anyway. I'm going to move FCC ids from a column to references in the notes column as I discovered to how link to the FCC website. The FCC filing contains useful info and it's good to have a connection between phone model and FCC id. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecbf (talkcontribs) 23:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a product catalog. It's useful isn't a very good argument in some cases. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
and I'd like to counter that multiple phone articles list model variations, hell look at the article for iPhones. If you're going to go on some sort of self-righteous crusade here, don't limit it to just one article or you look like an idiot. Here's an additional to consider as well: See if you can find any information on Google within a minute on the LTE bands of the various models of the G2. I certainly couldn't. In this case it's definitely needed. (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Supported frequency bands are product properties just like dimensions or number of pixels in the camera. The reason they vary from region to region is because it's impossible to create a smartphone compatible with all carriers. If they are to be removed half of the infobar should be removed too starting from dimensions all the way down. What is the reason battery capacity is included especially for two variants? Why list display size? The article that you linked says: "If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion... Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader." I have provided the reasons.Ecbf (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The conversion of FCC id column to references is on hold since the FCC website was shutdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecbf (talkcontribs) 02:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Rather than addressing "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion, ViperSnake151 decided to remove "Network compatibility" section. Oh, well... The last edition of it can be found here. Ecbf (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, fine. You win. Put it back. Now, if you excuse me, I'm going to push every other article to include them as well. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"Network Compatibility" section for every phone with proper references and uniform table format? I'd love to see that :) It takes effort to collect this information. Yes, the information is available elsewhere just like the information in every Wikipedia article can be found elsewhere but in Wikipedia it's packed, congested and uniform. I can make the table collapsed by default so it doesn't take visual space. Ecbf (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I seriously think we need an RFC on this. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Image Selection[edit]

LG G2 logo.jpg
LG G2 (Black).jpg
B. LG G2 (PNG)
LG G2 logo.jpg
LG G2.png

Hi guys I would just like to ask for your opinion on what image looks better for the LG G2 article infobox as both images seem to be eligible and to finally have a true consensus once and for all. The choices are as follows (See Infobox samples on the right)

To all users who had and still will give their own opinions on the matter, Thank You for your time and input. Please feel free to invite more people to put their inputs on. GadgetsGuy (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I organized the comments into sections to make the final determination easier, I hope.—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 15:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Image A (top)[edit]

  • If the license is not an issue, I prefer Picture A, because it is a good picture and we can see the clarity of the image of grass and flower. I think is fair enough to use good picture, while the other gadget use blank image, because we are not comparing some gadgets in one article.Gsarwa (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If Picture A doesn't have any license issues, then I say that we should go with that one. It is much more detailed, and it also provides a glimpse of the device's software setup. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree. In my opinion the first picture is the proper one. MrCellular (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If there is no licensing issue, I prefer the top image, for the reasons L&D2000 stated. I don't know how to determine if there is a licensing issue, however; if one exists, this survey is moot. As for uniformity on device images, I looked at several articles and there are some that look like Image B and some that look like Image A; others are photos of the devices on display in a store. There is no uniformity to be achieved. The only other concern I have is that the two images apparently don't show the same phone. The area above the screen is different; the lower image shows a round hole and an rounded rectangular hole; the top image might show the rounded rectangle; if it does; it's dark gray and very hard to see. Not sure this is an issue, though, although in this one area the bottom image is more detailed than the top one.—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 15:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no licensing issue, per this decision on 10 June 2014 at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:LG G2 (Black).jpg:

This is an image which LG has explicitly released. It is entirely safe to assume that the release covers both the copyright for the photograph of the device and the copyright for the image on the device. I cannot believe that LG released the former, but left the latter as a "gotcha" to trap users of the image.

So the "licensing issue" is non-existent.—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 19:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Image B (bottom)[edit]

  • In my opinion the second image is better off for the article infobox as it integrates better than the first one in the article plus the first image has a questionable show of UI license as we only assume that the license also applies to the UI. Lastly even if the first image is cropped, the image wil still have an opaque background which barely looks good on the infobox as a result of being a jpeg file. Plus this achieves uniformity on device images. GadgetsGuy (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, your "questionable show of UI license" has been disproven. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Use the second image, the first one is questionable to show but the second should be fair to use. Frmorrison (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

General concerns[edit]

I was looking over the article and found a few things that concern me:

  • The |accesssdate= parameter dates are given in dmy format; the article dates are mdy. This isn't a huge disconnect, but it is distracting. In reviewing relevant Wikipedia articles, I see that this is considered "common practice". While this may be a valid option, my personal preference is to have body and citation dates in the same style. It's less work for the reader, who doesn't have to switch their brain around which date format they're looking at.
  • None of the citations are complete. They fail to list authors of the articles that had them and none of them have dates, even if the articles they link to were dated. An access date is much less important than the date the source was published. I'm not sure why these parameters were skipped in the citation templates used, but they're there for a reason—they help identify exactly what's being cited.
  • None of the sources show |archiveurl= or |archivedate= parameters. While not required, it's important to archive the sources when they're available (if possible; not all publications allow their pages to be archived) to avoid WP:LINKROT (dead links) down the road. If you update the citations and the original site is still live, be sure to add the |deadurl=no to the template; otherwise, it defaults the link to the archived version and indicates that the original is available from a different link. If you don't want to update the citations, I really urge you to go back to the websites you've referenced and submit them to the archive. That way, when the original page is moved/deleted, the editor who encounters the dead link can add the archive information to the citation. Articles sometimes disappear much faster than you might think! I just ran into a situation where the original article was on the website in April 2013 and the first time the archive captured the page was in October 2013—and it was already a missing page, so there's no archive available. Don't rely on the archive's crawling the web to capture your sources—submit them to be on the safe side!
    • You can paste the following javascript into a bookmark on your toolbar (where the url would normally go) to make finding or submitting articles to (the Wayback Machine) a one-click process:

Other than that, it looks pretty good. I'm not a WP:GA reviewer (and don't want to be, I don't think), so I can't review the article officially. I think the concerns above should be addressed by those who have edited the page previously. Just my 2¢. Thanks.—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 16:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:LG G2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Numbermaniac (talk · contribs) 05:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought I'd review this for GA status. First impressions are that it's pretty neat, and should be capable of passing. -- t numbermaniac c 05:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    There's a few typos here and there, but nothing major to pick on as far as I've seen.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    I'm worried about a lack of references in the lead section of this article, however this shouldn't be too much of a problem as the references are provided later in the article.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    A good range of technical sources used for this article to describe the topic.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    A lot of detail provided, but not too much.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Both sides of the argument given to this phone and its features.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Seems relatively stable.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Both free and have CC licenses attached.
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This is a good article. Pass.