Wikipedia:Peer review/IPad 2/archive1

IPad 2

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because both the iPad and iPad 3 articles have reached GA status and I want to get this one there as well.

Thanks, Zach Vega (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead could use some info specific to what changed from iPad to iPad 2.
Could also touch on the sales.
Infobox has a lot of overcapitalisation (e.g. Audio Formats, 3G Model, Micro-SIM Card tray...) Done
Fix the [citation needed] in the infobox. Done
Normally you don't include anything in the lead that isn't included and expanded upon in the main part of the article so you ought not to need those citations in the lead.
First three sentences of History start with "Apple..." which is a little dull. Done
"Apple announced that the iPad 2 will be released...." already happened. Done
"struck the entire nation " no need for "entire". Done
"The iPads may be delayed..." again, this is in the past. Done
" of the iPad (3rd generation)" would prefer "of the new iPad" linked accordingly. Done
"that was released on October 12, 2011 " no it uses the iOS 5.1 released later. Done
"and is supposed to bring" well, either it does or it doesn't, we should know by now. Done
"Another application made by Apple available for the iPad 2 is the Apple Store app." really worthy of inclusion? Deleted
"plus a 3 axis gyroscope" a three-axis gyroscope. Done
"The original iPad (left) compared to the iPad 2 (right)." would put left/right in italics and no need for the full stop. Done
Don't overlink Watt. Could only find one instance where watt is mentioned - YuMaNuMa
There's a "times" symbol (×) that you should use rather than an x (for 5x). Done
[25] [26] - remove space from between refs. Done
" Apple claims doubles processing"... can't we verify this by now with independent benchmark tests? Done
You don't need to include articles in the See also that you've already linked in the article (e.g. Tablet computers...) Done
DON'T SHOUT in the refs. Done
Use en-dash per WP:DASH in the refs for titles, year ranges etc.
Don't have bare URLs in the refs. Done
Author names, are they First Last or Last, First?
Don't mix date formats in the refs.
Avoid double periods in the refs (e.g. after an Inc.)

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also in addition to what was mentioned above, I think a critical reception section is vital for this article to achieve GA status. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 10:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]