Jump to content

Talk:300-page iPhone bill/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

GA fail

Procedural notice:

— pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

AFD, Deletion, DRV, restoration

It should be noted that an AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/300-page iPhone bill started 1 September 2007, resulted in this article being deleted on 9 September 2007, after which it was restored by deletion review [1]. There is currently an AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Ezarik for the article about that individual, Justine Ezarik. Edison 16:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/300-page iPhone bill (second nomination) has also failed. -- Taku (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Fail (2nd Nom)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

The basic problem with this article, at the current time, is that is not stable. In the past week it went under AfD, was deleted and was undeleted. It was undeleted, however, with the pretense that a merger would be discussed with Justine Ezarik, an article which itself is under an AfD. I am aware that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but unfortunately the article's independent existence at the moment is unstable, which precludes it from becoming a Good Article. As it is unlikely that this stability could be definitively achieved within the seven days that a hold would entail, I am failing the article.

There are several other issues as well. The article's lead, for example, is excessively long per WP:LEAD and contains facts that are not included in the sections of the article. In fact, it contains the only description of the video itself, which should be placed in its own section in the article and only summarized in the lead.

In addition, the "Other noted iPhone bills" section should be reworked into either a prose section that outlines the details of the instances, or a properly formated time line if there is some sort of chronological relativity to the incidents.

The article is also missing several important discussions, in my opinion. For example, there should be a small background section. What is an iPhone? What are normal sizes for phone bills? What could cause a phone bill to grow that large? These things may seem obvious to you and I, but perhaps not to everyone who might read the article. You don't have to give the whole history of the iPhone, but it should include some technical specs or perhaps some quotes from Apple that explain why a 300 page iPhone bill is such a big deal. Apple claims that the iPhone is an extremely compact and practical way to accomplish a large variety of things - thus we encounter a juxtaposition when this device produces an obviously unnecessarily large waste of paper with its use. It sounds POV and OR when I say it, but when sourced with news articles and the like (after all, the reason that it's notable is that its attention stems from the contrast between the amazingly multi-functional and compact iPhone and the wasteful bill) it won't sound as bad.

I would also suggest that you make the notability of the incident stand out more. You touch on this in the reaction section, but a section concerning impact might help. The reaction section I think gets at why this is notable, but it is spread out between many different subsections. It would be nice to have a concise section that specifically outlines the impact that this bill has had, even if it slightly repeats some of what is written in "reactions."

I also have a few scruples with the prose but, since there are more pressing concerns and it is difficult for me to evaluate it in light of everything else, I don't have a fully formed opinion on it just yet.

Having said that, if the dust settles and this article remains and can be shown to be stable, I encourage you to renominate it for GA Class. When you do, you are welcome to leave a message on my talk page and I would be glad to re-review it once the stability issues have been resolved, including a more thorough review of the prose. Cheers, CP 01:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

=Comments on Revised Article=

The lead is much better now, a nice paragraph that is fully referenced and addresses all the major points detailed in the article. The background section is excellent, well-referenced and delving into enough detail without becoming too specific. It connects very nicely to the overall theme of the article.

I liked the reaction section, but I would merge the "Security" sub-heading with one of the others for two reasons: 1) It's only one sentence, which means that it shouldn't stand alone under its own heading. 2) Four subheadings under a section of this size seems a bit excessive to me. If it could be expanded, however, then it might be able to stand alone, but the better option is probably to merge it with another section. My suggestion would be to put the sentence into "Industry," which it makes it a bit awkward still, but not quite as much so as having one sentence in its own sub-heading. It also puts a large gap between the two mentions of Rob Enderle. The statement "so Apple customers may have been surprised by AT&T's legacy business practices" isn't quite supported by the source as thus seems a bit POV (unless I read the source wrong - a distinct possibility). I'm not exactly sure how I would tweak it, but the whole sentence is very long. I would suggest a period after "since 1990" and beginning a new sentence with something along the lines of "The company has adopted..." although maybe not using the word company if it can be avoided, since it was used very recently in the paragraph. ("environmentally responsible company")

I still think that the "Other noted iPhone bills" should be reformatted into a prose section, although that might just be my personal preference, but I think right now it's only one step above a "Trivia" section. I didn't actually check the external links, but the video only needs to be linked to once (if it went down, for whatever reason, it could be dealt with at that time).

I fixed a few minor MoS issues (titles, such as "Ms. Ezarik," should omit the "Ms.," not beginning a sentence with "but" etc.) and though I haven't thoroughly checked it for perfect grammar, there's nothing that should be incompatible with GA standards. I'm fairly certain that the article is MoS compliant now, but it couldn't hurt to quickly glance at WP:MOS if you haven't already.

I would still be cautious on promoting this article to GA if I were reviewing it, since I usually like about a week to ensure stability. Justine Ezarik's article has been saved, so I'd still want to make sure that this article was here to stay before I promoted it. Of course, there's no official time-restraint, so if you want another opinion, you can always re-submit it for GA. At this point, I don't think it would be failed outright, although I'd imagine there'd likely be a hold placed on it. If it were me, I'd fix the little problems that I mentioned above and wait a week-ish before re-submitting. If you've got any more questions, feel free to leave me a message. Cheers, CP 16:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I trimmed the lead further, and clarified a minor point (see below). I expanded the security section with a few more refs to help it stand on its own, and moved it down to avoid the break in Enderle's comments. I found a better cite for the surprise statement and added it. I reworked the list to remove NN names and add quotes so it provides additional customer reaction, and also addresses your original question about bill sizes, i.e. bills of 50-150 pages were considered notable, so 300 pages is over-the-top. I also integrated one item about cost into the prose, to tie those list items to the text. The multiple links to the different video sites allow checking of the number of views. I'll add back some detail that ties this in. Thanks again for taking care of the MoS items. Dhaluza 10:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

titlage

Reading the title alone, this article is about a bill for an iPhone that ran 300 pages? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, yes. -- Huntster T • @ • C 10:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Negative. Reading it, the article is actually about an AT&T Wireless bill that ran 300 pages for a customer who uses an iPhone. I imagine the bill for the iPhone was probably only a page or two at most, contrary to what the title conveys. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it actually was 300 pages long. Check the refs. If you are being pedantic about the fact that this is the bull for the monthly recurring charge for iPhone service, rather than the iPhone device itself, Apple can apparently email the receipt for that on request, making it totally paperless. Dhaluza 03:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right, that's what I'm referring to. There is no "bill" for the iPhone, only the AT&T wireless service. But the title of the article as it stands intimates a 300-page bill for the iPhone itself. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)I don't think so. Again, check the references. The title is consistent with their characterizations, so it is supported by RS. For example:

  • A 300-page iPhone Bill? : iPhone owners rail at AT&T for paper waste with overly detailed bills.. Computerworld
  • How many trees did your iPhone bill kill?. USA Today
  • A 300-page iPhone bill? Too much information, users say. Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
  • AT&T’s Overstuffed iPhone Bills Annoy Customers. The New York Times.
  • Thirty thousand text messages equal a forest killing 300-page phone bill. Monsters and Critics.
  • Pittsburgh Blogger's 300-Page iPhone Bill Mailed In Box. WTAE-TV News
  • AT&T Decides To Kill the iPhone Bill. CIO Today.
  • Bulky iPhone Bills Can Top 300 Pages. ABC News.
  • 300-page iPhone Bill. Hispanic Business News.
  • Woman mocks 300-page bill-in-a-box. WFAA-TV news
  • AT&T says "No more 300-page iPhone bills". Ars Technica.
  • Long iPhone bills go away. The Sacramento Bee.
  • AT & T to keep iPhone bills brief. The Los Angeles Times.
  • No More 300 Page Bills for iPhone Customers. Image and Data Manager,
  • iPhone: The 800-Pound Gorilla Spawns a 300-Page Bill. Destination CRM.
  • 300-page iPhone bill that's as thick as a novel. The Daily Mail.
  • The iPhone bill demonstrates need for open spectrum. ZDNet.
  • "iPhone bill is as thick as a novel", Daily Telegraph,
  • First iPhone Bills Arriving—and They're Pretty Heavy, Yahoo! Tech.
  • Business: iPhone bills land with a thump. St. Petersburg Times.
  • The other shoe - measured by the ton - drops with the iPhone bill. Government Computer News

-- ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs) 06:34, 19 September 2007

Okay, I can see why we use that name, but shouldn't we ultimately use something more aptly descriptive? I'm not arguing that everybody is going to misinterpret it, it's just every time I read the title, my brain keeps jumping to a mental image of a huge bill from Apple Inc. for an iPhone. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
For that matter, the introductory sentance is simply patently incorrect. "A 300-page iPhone bill was" not the subject! AT&T is only mentioned at the end of the lead paragraph as having sent a text message explaining "changes in its billing practices." I'm not an Apple fanboy by any means, but until you delve more into the article, the article (and title) allows the reader to form the impression that the iPhone (and by relation, Apple) is responsible for the large bill received.

I advocate that both the article and lead paragraph should be re-written for the clarification of this issue. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't one of the considerations used in the naming of articles that the name with the highest level of recognition amongst readers should be used? Yes, AT&T should be mentioned in a more significant way, but there won't be the same recognition with a title like "300-page AT&T bill". The title isn't necessarily wrong, because it still directly relates to the iPhone and not another package, it just isn't as correct as using "AT&T". -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The references and I agree with you. Virtually everyone knows a "phone bill" is for the service, not the phone itself, and an "iPhone bill" very succinctly and unambiguously identifies the subject. And, yes, that is both the title and subject of the video. I did move the ref to AT&T up front to immediately eliminate any possible confusion. Dhaluza 09:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Iphone

This article is longer than the entire AT&T wireless article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility This is simply ridiculous, the subject can be assumed to be a mistake by AT&T that turned into a short-lived internet joke. I am on the verge of thinking this isn't even notable, but instead I will cede that it is slightly notable; I think a fair compromise is that it be merged with the Iphone article, which will force us to shorten it to a reasonable length. A few ideas of what can be cut: the background information on what the Iphone is and its significance. This is contained in Iphone article. Cut down the amount of information on Justine Ezarik - she is NOT notable. Cut out the parts about high bills - this is unrelated to long bills, and deserves its own mention in the Iphone. There's plenty of other things that can be done too, but those are some thoughts. Rm999 10:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Justine Ezarik is notable enough to survive AFD. It's the editor's responsibility to expand the AT&T mobility. The constant AFDs on this article, as well as the DRVs shown that this article has attained notability, but the high bills should be taken out since that's not what the article is about. --wL<speak·check> 14:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd say merge with iphone - maybe a paragraph will do it. That and send the rest of the article to a specialist apple/ipod wiki. --Fredrick day 15:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The bill was for the iPhone service from AT&T Mobility so that would be the more logical merge target, but as you point out, it was a mistake and would be completely out of context there. Ezarik even said she had no complaints with the iPhone itself, so it is not primarily applicable to that subject. As far as the complaints about the length, the article only contains brief snippets from the many sources. There is actually plenty of additional material for expansion. Dhaluza 00:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Barely, more people agreed her article should be deleted than not. No consensus does not mean her article is notable. Anyway, as I mentioned, I admitted this article is notable (barely), but it is longer than it should be or needs to be. It goes on and on about something that will be forgotten in a year, and tries to create controversy where none exists. This is a minor topic about the Iphone, and belongs in that article - not as its own ridiculously long article. Rm999 00:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

GA 3rd nom -- on hold

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I will start out by saying that since the last GA nomination, it is my opinion that this article is markedly better. The main issue from before, the stability, is good now, with next to no changes since the last review (discounting the changes made due to that review).

Overall, it's a pretty good article, although I have does not quite warrant GA status yet. However, since the issues are for the most part minor and easily remedied, I have put the nomination on hold for 7 days. Here is a list of the issues that I came across and suggestions I have that are easily fixable and will warrant GA status:

Prose

Comments are split by section, and progress as per the flow of the article

Background

  • "A little more than a month later" -- sounds too informal. Perhaps, "Within a month and a half, ..." ?
  • The last paragraph of the Background section should be tightened up. ie. The first two sentences are conceptually intertwined, but this is not conveyed through the sentence structure (an modifier like however or although would be useful to connect).
  • The day of the week in a date is unimportant (ie. Saturday August 11, 2007)

Video

  • First sentence of first paragraph: firstly, I think you are over-labeling Ezarik, as this sentence has more descriptors (graphic designer, sketch comedian, et al) than the lead of her actual Wikipedia page. Cut it down to one or two relevant ones. Secondly, you begin talking about a video as if you've already explained it. Establish that she created a video and what it is about before talking about it. In fact, I'd suggest that a small establishing paragraph about Ezarik getting the bill would even be better placed in the Background section.
    • I dropped the lifecaster since that is not directly related. Graphic design is apparently her profession, and the blogging and sketch comedy are directly related to the video. Dhaluza 03:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "in several copies on YouTube" -- "in several copies" is superfluous, you've already established that you are talking about total views, it doesn't really matter that the video was duplicated within YouTube.
  • 3rd paragraph: "set to the music used in U.S. iPhone TV commercials" -- awkward phrasing. Try "set to music used in iPhone commercials appearing on American television" or the like.
  • Overall, I'd restructure the paragraph a bit. You jump between describing the video and describing the media reaction to the video. I'd reorganize to first fully explain the video and then speak about the media response.

Company

  • First sentence, delete the comma after "said": "AT&T Mobility, the mobile phone service provider for the iPhone, said, through spokesman Mark Siegel..."
  • Second paragraph, change "Then on 22 August" to "On 22 August, ..." (note the comma)
  • "Ezarik was quoted as saying "Looks like ... " -- you need a comma between saying and a quote.
  • "...company's switch to billing summaries rather than detailed billing" -- "...company's switch from detailed billing to billing summaries" would be clearer phrasing

Industry

  • 1st paragraph, there's no need to include "(CRM)" after "customer relationship management", it's obvious.
  • 2nd paragraph, use "do not" instead of "don't" -- WP:MOS#Contractions

Environmental

  • 1st sentence: the combination of the quote after a colon and the "he said" is redundant and awkward. I'd suggest something like 'Enderle also echoed Ezarik environmental activism, stating, "AT&T should get a new tagline -- use AT&T, kill a tree."'
  • If "Toledo Blade" is the name of the newspaper, it should be italicized. In fact, it looks like the name of the paper is actually The Blade, so a better wording would be "An editorial in The Blade, a newspaper in Toledo, Ohio, ..."
  • "and former U.S. Vice President turned environmental activist Al Gore" -- replace "turned" with "and".
  • 2nd paragraph: "One journalist reported in August 2007 that a million iPhone customers" -- "a million" is a colloquialism, replace with "one million"; the second instance of "a million" can be replaced with "that many" or something similar.

Security

  • Remember to italicize titles (Reason)
  • "by speculating on whether it would me more practical ... " typo, should be "be".
  • "showing that the detail pages do not contain such details" -- the detail pages don't contain details? Perhaps "such information" would be better?

Probably worthwhile mentioning that Muhammed Saleem's annual deforestation estimate was based on an average of 100 pages per customer per year. Seeing as the bulk of the bill is SMS transcripts and Justine received a 300 page bill with her 30,000 SMS messages it would follow that Muhammed's 100 page estimation would lead to an average of 10,000 SMS messages per month per customer (assuming that Justine's were of average length). See below. ^ a b c Levine, Barry (2007-08-24). AT&T Decides To Kill the iPhone Bill. CIO Today. Retrieved on 2007-09-14. “One blogger estimated that a 100-page bill, delivered monthly, would mean curtains for nearly 75,000 trees annually.”

So maybe worthwhile adding "However This estimate assumed an average of 10,000 messages per customer per month." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.6.140 (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Other noted iPhone bills

  • Item 5: no need for a comma between "Seattle" and "posted". Also, expand to "Seattle, Washington".

References

  • Industry section, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: there should be a reference given after Rob Enderle's quote. Reference #28, which is put on the next sentence, can be moved to the end of this sentence instead.
  • References #3, 29 are broken links.

Other

  • I have to take issue with some of your images. The first three are pretty good, and fit in with the article (however, you need to add the article name to the rationale templates for images 1 and 3). The fourth is a bit dubious -- yes, it's an AT&T logo and sign, but does it really have anything to do with the article? The fifth, however, really doesn't fit. It's nice to have illustrations, but a picture of some logging machinery really does not have anything to do with the article.
  • Also, the captions need some work. The first two are good examples of what captions should look like. The third is too prose-y, and should be summarized. The fourth and fifth (ignoring for a moment the fact that you should remove the fifth image) captions really don't have anything to do with the images at hand.
  • I have gone back and forth about the "Other noted iPhone bills" section. While I think it is pretty good from a prose/writing perspective (unlike the previous reviewer, I think a list works well), I am not sure if the section really belongs in this article. It might be better placed in the iPhone article, as this article is about one specific 300-page bill and its repercussions, not all notable bills. As I said, I went back and forth, so I'll leave this up to your discretion.
    • I dropped the expensive bill info per another suggestion above. Each item now contains a related quote, which provides additional perspective, in addition to that of Ezarik (i.e. that others had similar experiences and reactions). Dhaluza 03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As such, and as previously mentioned, I am putting this nomination on hold for up to 7 days, pending the resolution of the above suggestions. Please feel free to contact me if you want any clarification about something. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 22:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the article needs some help before it can be considered good. I'd prefer it be merged with Iphone, but if that is not a popular choice I'll add template messages where I think it needs improvement. Rm999 00:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you expressed your opinion above that you were unhappy with the AfD and DRV results. The GA reviewers have made very specific actionable comments. Other than the high bills, your comments have not been specific, actionable, or helpful. Dhaluza 03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Just because I disagree with you does not mean my comments are not valid. Another editor agrees with me, so I think we have a potentially interesting discussion here. I listed several specific ways I think the article could be improved if a merge is not possible. I specifically said I do not think all the material should be deleted (that's why I proposed a merge) - before you attack my comments, read them more carefully. Rm999 06:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't have a chance yet to re-read the article and evaluate the changes, but I wanted to point out that I have slightly pared down the External Links section, as I had neglected to mention it in my GA review. Firstly, there is no need to have the same video linked three times, even if it is different sites. Secondly, I removed the link to Ezarik's blog, because the blog as a whole does not really apply to this article, and if it should even appear anywhere, it would be better suited for her own wikipedia page. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 05:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:300-page_iPhone_bill/Archive_1&oldid=1136478187"