Wikipedia:Peer review/Android version history/archive1

Android version history

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…I want to put this as a FL but, I wanted to see if you can find anything wrong.

Thanks, Greg Heffley 17:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I am not a mobile phones aficionado (I remember before they existed and when phones actual "rang", rather than bleeped or played music). So if my comments betray a certain ignorance/naivety, I apologise. I tried.

Shouldn't this be considered as a subarticle of Android (operating system)? I see no hatlink to this article, nor even an acknowledgement that it exists

There is a hatlink on Android.

The title "Android version history" is somewhat misleading, for several reasons. First, the word "Android" isn't exclusive to mobile operating systems, so the title doesn't give a clear indication of the subject matter. Secondly, this series of lists of updates is not a "history" (any more than, say, a list of acts of the UK parliament would be a history of Britain). A more factual title would be something like "List of Android mobile operating system updates" - if you can prune that to a slightly shorter version, well and good.

Everyone seems to like the title the way it is

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and this has to be borne in mind particularly in the intoductory sentences of every article. Thus it isn't sufficient to say, merely, that "Android is a mobile operating system"; you need to summarise the technology in which it is applied, i.e. mobile phones and anywhere else it is used.
I am confused by the mention in the text of the Android beta, which is not introduced in the lead. And why should readers have to use a link to discover what "SDK" is? Whatever these are, they need explaining. In this connection, I think you need to look again at your lead, and decide whether this does, in fact, give an overview of the entire article.
Fixed
I notice that some of the list updates have specific citations while most do not. I'm sure there's a good reason for this, but perhaps you would briefly outline your citation policy.
I also notice a number of MOS violations in the citations formats, in particular missing retrieval dates, inconstant formats for retrieval dates, unformatted references, italicization of non-print publishers (e.g. Android Developers Blog), missing publisher details, etc. This whole area needs a thorough going-over.
I also have some doubts about the extent to which some of your sources might meet WP's reliable sources criteria., e.g. "Androidpolice", "Theodore Tso's blog" (which returns an access denied) and possibly others

The three above comments I'm not sure about. I didn't add them

Ref 21 is a dead link

Deleted

Images:
- File:Android home.png lacks source information. Author is not the same as uploader, so how do we know the licence is valid?
- Ditto File:Nexus S.png
- File:Xoom Motorola.jpg is non-free and requires a more detailed rationale for its use
- File:Galaxy Nexus.png How is this free?

As I am not able to watch individual peer reviews (too many), please feel free to raise any issues arising from this review on my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing...Greg Heffley 20:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]