Talk:Apple TV/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

The article contains eight dead links.[1]

There are some places in the article where a personal point of view seems to be being expressed, not obviously supported by the citation, as in "Apple's Mac mini in many ways is a more expensive, and fuller featured substitute that addresses many issues of past and current Apple TV models."

"Some people feel that the Front Row interface is lacking standard ...". Which people?

"Apple TV is seen by some to have limited out-of-the-box support for video and audio codecs." By who?

"Image quality of Apple TV content has also been noted as a concern. 1080i or 1080p HD content (e.g. content originating from HD cameras) must be downgraded in quality for use on Apple TV. Users without the technical knowledge to convert HD content to lower quality may have to resort to downloading low-quality iTunes Store movie content." Is this really so contentious that it needs to be supported by six citations? There are many other examples, like the first paragraph of the Hardware section.

"It also meant that users could buy HD television shows." To what is this "it" referring?

"Analysts also predicted that Apple could sell up to 1.5 million units in the first year." This has been flagged as need a citation since October 2008.

"Two months into sales, Forrester Research predicted that Apple will only sell a million Apple TV units ..." The whole Sales section needs to be updated. How many have actually been sold? Are they still selling well? Competition?

I see nothing about future plans for the device. Have there been no announcements made about its future direction?

The lead is a little short for an overview of the article. It should say something about the machine's commercial success, for instance.

There are a few uncited sections, the last paragraph of History, Synchronization and streaming, and the first paragraphs of Features, and Look and feel, for instance.

"In 2007, Mauricio Pastrana found and published ..." Need to explain who Mauricio Pastrana is.

"Initially, hacking required physical changes to the hardware; the bottom rubber panel must be removed (which is near impossible to do perfectly) and the hard drive connected to a computer." Why the tense switch? "Initially required" vs "must be removed".

"The same happened with Apple TV "Take 2" (the 2.0 update) ..". The same as what?

"The broken links mean that some statements such as "Concerns were raised about the Apple TV when it was originally released regarding the dependency on connectivity to a home computer via iTunes." are unsupported.

"What makes blog sites like Rogue Amoeba reliable?

Reference 43 is circular, referring back to this article. ({{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauricio_Pastrana#Apple_TV_Hack|title=Apple TV Hack: Composite Video}} Wikipedia can't be used a source for itself anyway.

--Malleus Fatuorum 16:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not looking too hot is it? I'd give it a go myself, but as of now I have a lot of my plate (assessments, Wikipedia things, etc) If de-listed I'll work on it and renominate at the end of this month, or the beginning of March. Good review (thorough, will make it easier to fix). Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As these issues remain outstanding this article has now been delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.