Jump to content

Talk:HTC One (M7)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. DrKiernan (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

HTC One (device) → HTC One – Is the flagship the primary topic over the series? In either case it is bad practice to redirect a disambiguation page like HTC One to a dab'ed page. Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

First sentence

First line: "The HTC One is an Android smartphone released by HTC on April 19, 2013." I've had mine more than a week, and I didn't get it on launch day. Should that say "released in the U.S", by any chance? Yes, I could fix it, but I have better things to do with my time than look up references - but a blatant mistake in the first sentence annoys me. 80.0.246.22 (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not an error; we usually go by the date it reaches general availability when determining release dates listed in the infobox: pre-orders are not "general"; its certain people being able to get it before it is generally released, or receiving priority on obtaining it once released. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:HTC One/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Numbermaniac (talk · contribs) 22:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I'm seeing this as almost certainly a good article.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

All this needs is some references where the cn tags are added, and the article can be made a GA. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 09:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
That was anazingly quick. Alright, a GA I think this can be! -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 00:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
It is now a GA! -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 00:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Sales figures

Thank you for pointing out that the reference to required info from WSJ already exists, I missed that. I think even more recent sales data should be added, though, something like this which includes monthly sales and the place in sales charts. Maybe I'll add in later...173.68.110.16 (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Should this phone be directly compared?

In both the Reception and the Sales sections the One is compared directly to both the iPhone 5 and the Galaxy S4. Should not these statistics be compared in a more general form? I feel these specific comparisons clash with rest of the article and should be swapped with more general statements. Thanks! 24.196.2.10 (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, direct comparisons should be minimized as the article is about the HTC One. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Ehh, the article mentioned that the One X flopped because of its competition. There's context. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Audio

Audio is one of the most important aspects of HTC ONE and was praised by audiophiles. Shouldn't the article expand on that? 202.137.132.7 (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. It holds a combination of the probably the most loud and high quality audio for smart phones. 91.197.129.74 (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Teardown

I think it should be mention that HTC ONE is very difficult to repair: http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/HTC+One+Teardown/13494/1.

And, in some countries like Thailand, people are complaining that it takes very long time (3-4 weeks) to get their HTC ONE repaired (seems to be because special machinery is required to disassemble the phone). 202.137.132.7 (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That's already mentioned under reception ("remarking that it would be "possibly impossible" to open the device without damaging its rear casing, making repairing a broken screen "nearly impossible"). Also do you have a source for that? ViperSnake151  Talk  05:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but due to the featured article review, it is going to be removed entirely. iFixIt is a niche website, and should not be referenced in this context. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

FA review cleanup

I've fixed many of the issues raised in the FA review. Specifically, I've filled out the refs and included the author names/publication dates/publisher/work fields, archived urls up to ref 14, removed redundant wording and rephrased some sentences, linked to some articles, italicized the publications, and cleaned up the article again. For the reviewer's comment about collapsing sections in the infobox: that may be unnecessary since the infobox in this article does not take up as much space as the ones in iPhone 5 and other articles, which are not collapsed either. The rest of the urls will need to be archived/updated with archived urls, and then I think all the issues will have been addressed. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: Refs 2, 18, 20, 35, 37, 40, 45, and 54 currently don't have archived versions on the Wayback Machine, so they'll need to be updated/added (maybe with archive.is). - M0rphzone (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 Done - M0rphzone (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Wired review not reliable

I'm thinking that we should remove the the Wired review by Michael Calore from this article due to the many issues with his criticisms. The review isn't very reliable/credible, not to mention the fact that Wired is inherently biased towards Apple products and against products from other companies. For example, the three-button issue was really not HTC's error as they had followed Google's Android design guidelines, but Calore never mentioned or explained the reason for HTC's two-button layout; other review pieces however, (such as the review by AnandTech's Brian Klug) did note this. Calore also criticized HTC for releasing the One with 4.1.2, rather than 4.2, but 4.2 had been released only 3 months prior to the official announcement. I'm not sure if he forgot that developers need more than 3 months time to prepare UIs such as Sense, or if tried to use that to defend his 7/10 rating. And note that Wired gave the HTC One X a 9/10, but the One a 7/10? What do you guys think? - M0rphzone (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw other reviews criticize the two-button layout for being awkward to use (i.e. having to reach for the home button, accidentally pressing the logo instead of the home button) ViperSnake151  Talk  05:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
But the problem is with other manufacturers continuing to use the deprecated UI even a year after Google already outphased it. The problem is not HTC's. If the reviewers do not mention that, then they did not commit their due diligence with their role as reviewers, and we really should not be using their reviews as they are not completely reliable or accurate. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning NFC functionality to fit with rest of paragraphs

I'm trying to come up with a good way to mention the One's NFC capability without forcing it or breaking the flow of the paragraphs. I originally wanted to mention the NFC functionality after the sentences about the camera and polycarbonate loop in the back as Anandtech described in their review. This was the my original idea (the italics contains the new addition):

"The polycarbonate forms a ring around the edge of the device, covers the top and bottom ends, and bisects the back with two lines, one of which flows around the camera lens below; the polycarbonate loop functions as an active area for NFC."

But in order to discuss NFC in this way, we need to introduce it before that section, and the only really practical location is in the lead paragraph, unless we can find a way to introduce it before the Features section. I'm thinking we can just mention it in the lead because it fits with the rest of the paragraph, despite the intention of only mentioning the "unique" aspects of the One.

Otherwise, we can forgo introducing it in the lead and design section, and just introduce it in the hardware section without mentioning after the camera description:

"The One is NFC-enabled; the polycarbonate encircling the camera functions as an active area for NFC, ...."

But now we can't mention NFC after describing the loop around the camera, and introducing it in the hardware section like this causes the paragraph topic to jump greatly from microUSB ports and charging to something about NFC enabled through the camera area when we already began introducing the camera in the Design section.

I also wanted to mention the metal construction and how the design enables the One to have radio and NFC reception despite its metal frame (in contrast to the iPhone 4 for instance, which had reception problems due to improper design), and word the polycarbonate part so that we could mention the lines/bands housing the secondary microphone opening and talk about it enabling functionality for the radio antennae (this is where the NFC active region ties in). So how should we go about this? - M0rphzone (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

NFC is a hardware aspect. And the lead was intended to focus on the new things that HTC did for the One, you don't use the lead to introduce topics that are never brought up again in the article. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, the current wording works for now. The additional part about mobile non-touch payments doesn't need a citation, since it's common knowledge that can be verified by reading the NFC article. It's like requiring a citation for a description about scanners being used to read barcodes/RFID tags.
So what about the build quality/metal construction in relation to the radio/signal reception? How should we integrate that into the paragraphs? - M0rphzone (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Definite article and camera issue

Per edit comments, I don't think removing "the" from "the HTC One" is constructive or necessary. We only avoid using "the" for proper nouns such as names of people or places. The HTC One is a product, not a person or place, and there is no need to adhere to guidelines if they do not fit with the article/topic. Also, the purple tint camera issue is far from being an "insignificant bug caused by software updates not released in US", ViperSnake151. It's both a software and hardware bug that's been present since the first manufactured batches, and the 4.3 update added a software fix for it that partly addressed the purple tinting. And it's actually been officially acknowledged by HTC, so please read before you revert/post. (Also, the 4.2.2 update was in fact released in the US, but only for a few carriers before it was skipped to 4.3). - M0rphzone (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If you follow the link in the cited source, HTC's statement was "We've recently received isolated reports of a purple hue appearing on images taken with the HTC One. After investigating the reports internally, we're planning a software update that will improve the colour contrasts in low light conditions", also the supplied source specifically states that the HTC notice "suggest that the problem is with the camera firmware, rather than with a defective component" - so claims of a "defective camera sensors in a large number" is still not supported by reliable sources.
As it stands, the issue is already mentioned in section 2.3.1 "Updates" in a manner which more accurately reflects the sources. So the mis-statement in the lead should be removed and allow the sourced mention in the Updates section to remain. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Except that the issue isn't only a firmware issue. It doesn't matter if HTC is sidestepping the issue or claiming software rather than hardware issues, but the tinting is caused by both defective firmware and sensors, not only firmware. If it was, then why do users still report purple tinting after the 4.3 update? However, I've rewritten the sentence for now. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Upon further review, the CNET source already present in the article does not blame 4.2 at all, so we were factually incorrect to begin with. But seriously, Definite nouns and nouns with a direct qualifier do not take definite article. You cannot use "the" there because it is technically incorrect. The majority of Wikipedia's articles on devices make this mistake. But still, I don't think its a detail significant enough to be mentioned in the lead, it is not a prominent controversy, it's just a bad batch. iPhone 5S does not mention any problems of a similar nature in its lead because they only affected a small number of units. iPhone 4 doesn't either, but thenagain maybe it should mention Antennagate because it was a major aspect of the phone's release... ViperSnake151  Talk  00:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not just a "bad batch" though. Users still report having the purple tint issue even now, months after the "bad batches" were released. And I doubt it's just a "small" percentage of the units produced - without numbers, we can't even make judgements like that. (And it seems we may also need to add the "antennagate" issue to the iPhone 4 lead, since it was quite widely reported about). I don't know, the purple tinting issue been addressed in the updates section (although worded euphemistically), but I think it might also need to be addressed in the Reception section. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source that states it's not "isolated reports" and not "just a bad batch", or are you basing your claim on your original research in consolidating forum posts? If you have a reliable source that confirms it is a larger-scale issue, then that should be added to the article. Otherwise, we should stick with what is stated by reliable sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
It's been removed from the lead, since it's synthesis, but if there are RSs that mention a hardware defect, then they will be added to the camera section. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


I managed to get the page semi-protected because of that one IP user (yeah, multiple addresses, but I presume its the same person) who kept restoring the poorly-sourced content. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

On a side note, I'd prefer if you didn't just blankly revert edits like this. You introduced a lot of errors in the same edit earlier, and you basically undid all the fixes and changes I made to the article unrelated to the article usage. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved HTC One to HTC One (2013). There was a proposal from one editor to move HTC One series to HTC One, but since there was no discussion of the alternative option to create a dab page at HTC One, I do not see a consensus to perform that move. Feel free to open a new RM to discuss that proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

HTC One → HTC One (2013) – Now that HTC has announced the next HTC One, should we move this article to HTC One (2013) or HTC One (1st generation)? For examples, the iPad articles use "[sequence] generation", while Nexus 7 articles uses "[year] version". I'm suggesting using the "[sequence] generation format", and maybe also rename the Nexus 7 articles to follow that format. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HTC_One_(M7)/Archive_1&oldid=1083503921"