Talk:iPad

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the iPad article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the iPad. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the iPad at the Reference desk.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Why doesn't the article contain as much criticism of the iPad as I would like? Because no one has found reliable sources to source further criticism.

IPad was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result December 26, 2009 Articles for deletion Kept January 24, 2010 Articles for deletion Kept June 27, 2010 Good article nominee Listed March 26, 2011 Good article reassessment Kept April 14, 2011 Good article reassessment Kept January 20, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted February 7, 2021 Good article reassessment Delisted December 18, 2022 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Computing High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as High-importance). Apple Inc. Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Brands High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Worldwide Developers Conference#WWDC 2010|WWDC10]] The anchor (#WWDC 2010) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect IPad Air (2013) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 3#IPad Air (2013) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bassie f (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

.

This review is transcluded from Talk:IPad/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 06:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was delisted from Good Article status in 2021 per Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/IPad/2 based on two issues: (1) excessive detail (WP:GACR #3b) in the "Model comparison" section, consisting of large detailed tables that should (according to the review at the time) be replaced by prose listing only the variations in model history that have been deemed particularly salient by reliable sources, and (2) non-cited material failing verifiability.

26zhangi recently re-nominated it, writing in an edit summary "It previously was stripped of GA status because of excessive detail, but that has been resolved".

I do not think it has been resolved. The model comparison section indeed contains fewer tables (now only two, a badly-sourced listing of in-production models and a large and entirely unsourced table of all models, with production and support lifetimes. But it still consists of tables of excessive detail, poor sourcing, and none of the requested prose. The "Timeline" section also consists only of data with no prose and inadequate sourcing (basically a link to Apple's "here's where to look for our archive of press releases" page). And the "Market share" section is sourced only to a reference considered to be generally unreliable (Statistica). The first paragraph of the "Censorship" article is sourced only to a speculative editorial.

Even when we have prose rather than tables it is overdetailed, repetitive, and tedious, and packed with undigested marketing buzzwords in place of useful information. Do we really need an entire paragraph of fill-in-the-blanks boilerplate text for each release of each model in the "History" section? It appears that editors saw the request to trim the detail and use prose instead of tables and instead of thinking about what was important enough to write about, took the entire content of the tables and made text wrappers around each table cell instead of graphical box wrappers around the cells. And some of the details don't stand up to scrutiny. What was the predecessor to the first-generation iPad Pro, the machine that it was supposedly 1.8x faster than? Why is the number of cores useful information to readers of this article? Why is the number of transistors on a chip useful information? Why is the lithography line size of a chip useful information? What does it mean for a display to feature "50% optimized" technology? What does "attracts any orientation" mean, if it can be explained in a way that would pass Apple censorship?

Other more easily fixed issues include sentence fragments ("In addition to a camera connection kit which consists of two adapters..."), peacock prose ("Apple extended the range of cellular compatibilities worldwide with the release..."), outdated details ("The 3G-based iPad is compatible with any GSM carrier" dated 2010), verb tense wildly varying within single paragraphs, etc. It gives me the strong impression that nobody has made a thorough copyediting pass of the entire article to make sure its prose is still consistent and makes sense, something that should be done before any nomination, not something that one should expect the GA reviewer to have to do.

I do not think this was ready for a new GA nomination (basically, per WP:GAFAIL #5: previous issues still valid). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a >> typo << which I cannot edit myself, so I am reporting it here!

"In May 2004, Apple filed a design trademark patent in Europe for a handheld computer, hypothetically referencing the iPad, beginning a >> twnew << round of speculation that led to a 2003 (...)" 83.185.36.244 (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it, thanks. Theknine2 (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What should we do with the table in the Model Support Status section? Stephen"Zap" (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...keep it? I'm not sure what is being asked here. Is it a problem? GSK (talk • edits) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The table "iPad models currently in production" shows the iPad Air 5th generation as the current version and also shows it as equipped with an M2 processor (it has an M1).

I think this should be instead iPad Air (6th generation) which has the M2 Bobatsar (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CAN SOMEONE FIX IT because it links to ipad air with an m1 from 2022 but it’s supposed to be the ipad air 6 with m2 Haloretailstore (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under #Model_support_status section --> first table (iPad models currently in production), please change "iPad Air (5th generation)" to "iPad Air (6th generation)". Armintirtapar (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seasider53, regarding this edit: You restored a version with an inconsistent writing style, which is no improvement. You should have either used the correct writing style throughout the whole article or pointed out on the talk page that the form with hyphens is the correct one. Simply restoring a version with some correct and some incorrect forms is no improvement at all, and arguably even worse because the previous version was just wrong, whereas the current version is both wrong and inconsistent. Maxeto0910 (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, we would have adjusted to match the correct writing style with the initial edit, not to match the incorrect version, no? Seasider53 (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) This is a whataboutism.

2) If a user knew that the form with a hyphen is the correct one, absolutely. Maxeto0910 (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the “the first generation of iPads” and similar sentence structures? The lack of hyphens here would be correct. Not every mention of the generation will have hyphens. Seasider53 (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know; I'm referring to the instance of "[...] Apple continued to sell the older model at the same price, while the price for the newer 10th generation model was increased", which lacks a hyphen despite being needed. Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]