Talk:Xbox One/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 23:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I should have this to you within a day or two. JAGUAR  23:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

Lead

• Per WP:LEADCITE, citations are discouraged from the lead unless it's citing controversial information. It's understandable to keep a few citations in the lead for an article of this size and importance, but I think a few could be removed from the lead. Examples would be "is the third console in the Xbox family.[7]" and the citations that source the release dates (which are included in the infobox anyway)
• "Xbox One was released across North America, several European markets, Australia, and New Zealand on November 22, 2013" - "in" or "on"? The sentence after this states "released in September 2014"
• Inconsistencies with "Xbox One" and "the Xbox One" phrases in the lead? Which one is it?

Body

• "As of June 2013, it remains in production by Microsoft" - this seems quite outdated, as June 2013 was before the Xbox One's launch? Are they still producing Xbox 360s?

  I'm struggling on how to handle this. The console is still in production by all appearances (New releases, etc), and there's been no news or even rumors of it being discontinued. It's like trying to source an negative. No one is talking about the continued production. I'm digging for a source but can't find anything. It's simply the current state, which hasn't changed. Does this need a newer source in order to push the As Of date forward? -- ferret (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  Made some progress in source hunting, this source would work for moving the date up to June 2014. -- ferret (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  This may also work, in so far as showing a new bundle for Xbox 360 being released in 2015. -- ferret (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  I've handled sans-source, as the template instructs that 'current state' is valid rationale for the date. -- ferret (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Initial hardware for the 360's successor, commonly referred to by the industry as the "Xbox 720"" - per MOS:BOLD, this shouldn't be in bold if it's not in the lead
• "The change, which pushed the release date for the other 8 markets" - eight
• "Eurogamer has been told that for simultaneous read and write operations..." - this sounds like it's in present tense, even though the section is referring to the hardware? Was Eurogamer told this prior to the Xbox One's release?
• "Microsoft unveiled the Xbox One Elite Wireless Controller" - should this be renamed Xbox One Elite Controller? Also I'm surprised this doesn't have an article or at least a redirect yet
• "The new UI includes a sidebar" - this should be written out as "user interface (UI)"
• "Games are rendered on a screen in a virtual "theatre" setting" - theater(?)
• "Engadget were similarly modest on-launch" - upon launch
• "but that whilst "magical", "every false positive or unrecognized [voice] command had us reaching for the controller."" - I found this part in the reception section quite hard to read. I would recommend paraphrasing this (so there is prose in between the two quotations)
• "IGN.com also praised how Xbox One" - should just be IGN (without italics)
• There is a split tag in the Retail configurations section that has been unattended since May, has there been a conclusion to this proposal yet? It would seem ugly to leave this in the article after promotion
• Forza 5 is linked twice in the Special editions section

• Similarly, Halo: The Master Chief Collection is linked twice in the whole Retail configurations section

• Some small paragraphs in the Sales section could be merged to create bigger ones, in order to improve flow

Yeah. I tried to tell ViperSnake about the IGN.com part, but he was neutral about it, and "theatre" is a British spelling. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

References

• Ref 6, ref 23 and ref 108 are all dead
• ref 21 is dead and also needs fleshing out

I added archival parameters to the citation templates that needed them where possible, but neither the Wayback Machine nor WebCite had an archive of reference #6. —zziccardi (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I have repaired reference #6, there was a typo in this diff. The '04' should have been changed to '07'. -- ferret (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

On hold

Overall this is a well written and comprehensive article. Once all of the above are addressed I'll take another look and see if it complies per the GA criteria. In the mean time, I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days. JAGUAR  18:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears that everything has been addressed here, and that upon taking another look I'd say that this meets the GA criteria now. Well done JAGUAR  14:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)