Talk:Apple TV/GA4

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
A request for a GAR has been present since September 2018. It has had a bit of a turbulent history of assessment and reassessments and while I hate to add to that I feel it needs to be done again. The request was made by 344917661X regarding a lot of unreferenced claims. I will let them expand on that aspect. My main concern from a read through of the article is that it reads too much like an advert. Why are we listing and extolling on so many features. The table is something I would expect to see in a catalog. The prose itself is below par. Too many bullet points and lists and too much WP:Proseline. I feel this is a long way from Good Article standard. AIRcorn (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay 344917661X is Arb blocked so I don't expect them to respond anytime soon. AIRcorn (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am missing something they aren’t blocked.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No you aren't missing anything. I got my numbers mixed up JC7V7DC5768, the nominator of the article, is the one who is blocked. AIRcorn (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to continue with the article's reassessment, should the consensus support it. I am the one who has reviewed the article most recently. I have no opinion on the contents of the article currently, and wish to remain an onlooker in the discussion. GoAnimateFan199Pro (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I have recently initiated the reactivation of WP:APPLE and I'm learning how things work with an overall Wikiproject, so this issue fairly applies. For years, I've observed, but haven't participated in, the occasional Good assessment. I would like to learn about that, as well as see if it's possible to help define some standards for technical product pages. And as an editor, I'd like to know exactly why this article is of concern so that maybe I can help.

Wikipedians are mandated to avoid WP:NOTMANUAL WP:NOTCHANGELOG WP:NOTGUIDE WP:FANCRUFT WP:TRIVIA WP:NOTWEBHOST even if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I'm 100% supporting that as per encyclopedic standards of WP:N according to WP:RS. I have deleted a megabyte of that in my time, including technical spec sheets. However, I've definitely found that many Wikipedians vocally demand (though they don't WP:OWN the place) that consumer electronics articles must contain detailed spec sheets, and sometimes even version histories (particularly with PlayStation 4 system software or PS3 maybe). Their rationale is 1) such lists are vital information for product owners of some products (not our problem), 2) they aren't compiled in one source anywhere else or they're deleted from their vendors' sites (thus definitely making us outsourced webhosting by doing a vendor's job), and ... 3) it's gotta go somewhere! lol My stance on fancruft is "you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here *delete*". So do you guys think this article somehow fails by these criteria? Is there a way to standardize product pages so they can be the public product reference resource that all vendors should be providing, without becoming unencyclopedic? Is this already defined? What all of this info does is just talk and talk and talk about everything there is to know about the subject (product ownership and research), but it does not necessarily define its WP:N notability. All roads must lead to notability without WP:NOT.

Does this article pass Good if some of it (release notes and version changelogs detailed to the point of WP:FANCRUFT) is simply deleted? This is simply the first instance where I've seen Good challenged since I stewarded the project, so am I asking in the wrong place? I also don't see how to find the actual version of the article that was most recently assessed as Good, which is part of the problem with the whole assessment system in the first place. Thank you. — Smuckola (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. Here's the last version that was assessed Good (September 8, 2018):[1]. Here's the diff from that to current:[2]. It seems there's no difference to the overall structure, format, or tone. There's very little difference in the content. It's been updated somewhat to have the equivalent information about sequel models, in the same format as before. And it's got additional WP:RSes for existing content. Am I right, or am I missing something? Just speaking relatively to the previous assessment, how is there a new critical problem? Is its preexisting format now found to be unscalable in moving forward? Does it compare badly to other electronic consumer product pages? Can someone please show me a model article for a long-lived prominent consumer device, after which all should be modeled? Anyway, shall we simply summarize the content more, leaving a train of RS citations behind fewer sentences?

BTW my goodness, it's a multi-stage technical ordeal to manually find a way to dig the real assessed-Good version of the article, and hack the URL to diff them, lol. :-/ The whole purpose of assessments is of one version of the article, so that version should be prominently linked at the top banner.

Thank you so much! — Smuckola (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who nominated this for reassessment in the first place, there are still a lot of unreferenced claims scattered all over the article, meaning this article would easily fail criteria 2c of the Good article criteria. GoAnimateFan199Pro did a very poor job of checking to see whether or not the article met the criteria and unless the unreferenced claims are dealt with, then I don't think this article should be a Good article anymore. X-Editor (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@X-Editor: Okay so you are saying that it shouldn't have been Good in its previous assessment in September 2018. Were there any of its several previous Good assessments that you think were legitimate? The only problem you're stating is a lack of inline citations, so I'm trying to follow up on what you're saying about 2c. Where exactly are you seeing WP:OR? I see inline citations to WP:RS everywhere except a few minor statements about obvious things -- product features, akin to WP:BLUE, specifically that we don't have to cite literally everything -- and not something that could ever be confused or challenged. They could be deleted and nothing would be lost, though they shouldn't all be deleted because they're obviously true and relevant unless the goal is to summarize more succinctly and not be WP:MANUAL. Am I missing something where this is not the case? Thanks. — Smuckola (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Smuckola: If we are not going to cite everything, then I guess the best thing to do is to remove the unreferenced and over-promotional sentences and paragraphs in the article. And yes, I am saying it shouldn't have become a good article in the first place. X-Editor (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@X-Editor: And how about the rest of my sentence, showing the fact that it doesn't need to be cited? — Smuckola (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Smuckola: If it doesn't need to be cited, then I guess we should focus on making the article less promotional instead. What parts of the article do you think are promotional? X-Editor (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AIRcorn: And I would suppose you'd be someone who can answer my previous note about naming an existing model article for popular and enduring consumer electronics products series, so I know how to try to conform. Some other Apple products like iPhone? Something from Sony or Google? I don't normally read that stuff. Your original complaint was something fairly true and relatable though it doesn't literally read like an advertisement, but more like a WP:MANUAL which tends to build up out of WP:FANCRUFT or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because there's just so very much of that content out there. Specs and features are half of any reliable review, lol. I just need something to really go off of. Thanks. — Smuckola (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: Oops, pinging you this way because your username's formatting is super obnoxiously unquotable! — Smuckola (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Good article history is detailed on the talk page. If you click the show button by milestones it will give a pretty detailed account of when it has been assessed, what the version was then and the result. This page will be added to that list when it closes. I am not sure of your experience with how the Good article process works so I will just clarify a few things. It is in essence a lightweight process between two editors, one nominates the article and the other basically peer reviews it against a standard set of criteria. The interpretation of the criteria varies quite widely so what one person deems a Good article might not actually be considered Good by other editors. Also the standards have changed a bit over time so old GAs might not meet these new standards. It is useful to compare different versions, but it is not always useful to point to one as a definitive Good version.

One of my involvements in the Good process is the reassessment part of the project. This article was tagged as possibly needing a reassessment and it appeared on this list Wikipedia:Good article reassessment#Articles needing possible reassessment. This is how I came to be involved here. I don't edit technical articles much, but do have a pretty good understanding of the criteria.

When I read this article it felt more like I was reading a brochure than an actual encyclopaedic article. Part of the criteria is Focus and I feel overly detailed specifications, sales and features fails this criteria. The Prose is also poor in places. For example the 3rd generation is just a lot of short sentence paragraphs. That is minor though and the main issue for me is the Focus.

There are a few options from here.

We could remove a lot of the extraneous detail - either through deletion or if you feel it is necessary to keep it by moving to subpages. This is the top level article for Apple TV and should be in summary style. Then I will most likely close this as being kept good.
If you want to keep the level of detail I am happy to accept a RFC, or even a well attended noticeboard discussion, saying this is the expected standard for these articles. If a recent one already exists that might be enough. Otherwise we can pause this and start one now. Even though I think this is clearly unnecessary in the end the community gets to set the standards and the Good article project should abide by them.
If you feel that I am being unfair opening an individual assessment then I am happy to turn it into a community one and allow other editors to comment on whether it meets the criteria. However, it is a bit more of a convoluted process and is poorly attended.
Or finally we could keep it as it is and I could just delist it. Being designated Good is not a big deal in the scheme of things, it just means that it will lose its green spot and be removed from the Wikipedia:Good articles/Engineering and technology page. Someone can in there own time improve the article and renominate it at this page. Another editor will review it and my issues with it will always exist in the milestones.

I am fine with moving forward in any one of those directions. AIRcorn (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn and X-Editor: Like Aircorn said, some of the Good factor comes down to the individual assessment. So I was asking what the individual thinks. And yeah I haven't participated directly in Good assessment, but rather just co-editing for the goal of Good, so I appreciate the details. Can you guys please show me an example of an article about a long-lived successful technical consumer electronics product like something from Apple, Google, Sony, or whatever? So I know what to compare to? You're right about deleting a buncha stuff. Is there any effort to standardize such articles that the general public would use as guides for buying and research, and that a researcher reads for enyclopedic value? Thanks. — Smuckola (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at Wikipedia:Good articles/Engineering and technology#Hardware, standards and protocols. Keep in mind that some might have been passed a while ago and it is still reliant on an individual editor to pass. Most seem to have some issue so if you are interested in this area you won't be short of articles to work on. WP:FA is probably a better place to look if you want a more gold standard article. I am not seeing many technology articles there though. AIRcorn (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn, as the reviewer, could you come to a conclusion with regards to your GAR? --MrClog (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long delay, have been away from editing for a while. The concerns noted by myself and X-Editor are still present so will delist for now. AIRcorn (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]