Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apple TV/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

Apple TV[edit]

Well written article with detail, references, good prose/flow, photographs - Already a 'Good Article' and has been copy-edited several times. I think this meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance. — Wackymacs 20:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Josh, it's not badly written, but not there yet. In the lead, I see "The final product name was not announced at the time, referring to it instead by its codename iTV." And there are lots of stubby paragraphs. Needs thorough scrutiny; should succeed. Tony 14:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed a few things that were sticking out, hopefully it's a bit better now. — Wackymacs 21:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Forgive what may be a brash tone, but I just had a whole list of issues deleted. Overall, it's a good start, but not nearly as fleshed out as it should be (e.g. too much attention to unimportant details, not enough of what the device actually is).

Move links from "See also" to be incorperated into the article. Mention why Apple decided for a third time to create a set top box (a "History" or "Development" section would be nice... though knowing Apple the latter would be difficult to come by). Bringing up the Pippin and why the Apple TV doesn't have games (hardware issues, general lack of games for Macs) would also be good.
The criticism section is a mess. Cut it down and sum up the opinions a bit more. Use multiple cites when needed. What, no mention of the cost?
"Hacks" is full of jargon: "Back Row", "SSH", "RemoteManagement", "AppleFileServer"? What are these and what do they have to do with anything? Explain why hacks are needed.
The hand in Image:Apple TV (back).jpg is distracting, and both shots could use an update from a more practical position (size comparison to a VCR...sitting in someone's home theater setup). Also, a shot of the thing's guts would be helpful (around the hacks section). Good luck. -Mysekurity 06:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To be fair Mysekurity, none of these are valid reasons for an Oppose. Does the article actually fail any of the Featured Article criteria? What you have listed are ways to improve the article (something you might see in a Peer Review), but not reasons for Opposing. — Wackymacs 16:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "not nearly as fleshed out as it should be" for #1, specifically a) and b)? It needs a history section, and the second paragraph of the lead is confusingly written. I think this article fails criteria #1, and I brought up the Pippin and other devices as points where the article lacks clarification. -Mysekurity 23:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but a History section for something that came out a matter of months ago? There wouldn't be enough context for a full History section. What is confusing about the second paragraph of the lead - it simply explains when and who it was introduced by and when it started shipping... — Wackymacs 08:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A history section would encompass Apple's previous attempts at entering the living room (mostly the products mentioned in See Also), and would include the code name from the second paragraph. Explain why it matters that movies, iPod5 and iTunes 7 were all announced together (what is the tie-in?). As it stands now, the article is not enjoyable to read. It features too many tech specs and jargon. The average non-tech user (the average purchaser of Apple products) won't be able to make heads or tails of the article's content. And that is why I oppose this promotion. -Mysekurity 08:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. "Syncing" is not a proper English word afaik, and certainly not one that should be used in a heading that is supposed to be understood by everyone, young and old, developed country or elsewhere. The criticism section may be better labelled "Limitations". The first mention of "HD" should be unabbreviated. You should check for missing punctuation (there should be a full stop after "says it is no "speed demon""). Several statements seem false or are ambiguous, e.g.

"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 create HD content may have to resort to downloading lower-quality iTunes store movie content." - should this be "without the technical knowledge to convert HD content to lower quality"?
"Another past limitation required photos to be synced to the device,[39] but this was fixed in a June 2007 iTunes update." - you couldn't sync unless you had photos, or you were offered no choice but to also sync your photos?

Given that there was punctuation missing, I'd also tentatively suggest a spell-check. Spamsara 11:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamsara, I've gone through your points and fixed them. Thank you for the feedback. — Wackymacs 18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of the information needed for comprehensiveness is there, but it's not always clearly sourced. I've added some ^{[citation needed]} to indicate some instances where source information is absent. Also, I know this isn't a deal breaker, but it would really add to the article to have an evenly lit photograph with a balanced exposure. The photo currently at the top of the article is somewhat confusingly lit, and underexposed. I checked Commons, and no good alternative seems to exist. The best thing to do would be take a new photograph in a clean setting. Spamsara 22:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On third reading, it becomes apparent that it's not clear what kinds of computers can be synchronised with the Apple TV, and what the networking options are (wired/wireless/what kind of wireless, if any?). The only evidence I could find was in the right hand panel, where is says 802.11 connectivity, but the average reader may not be familiar with such terminology, and in any case, it should be written out clearly in the main body of text. I invoke the comprehensiveness criterion. Spamsara 04:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.