Template:Did you know nominations/Samsung Galaxy Alpha

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It's been over two weeks since the last comment here, and over a week since the nominator was pinged, yet there have been no edits to address the issues raised in the review or a response here asking for more time to do same. The remaining hook is not impressive and the nomination is now two months old, so I'm going to let this close.

Samsung Galaxy Alpha

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the Samsung Galaxy Alpha was rumored to have a 1440p display, but only ended up having half as much?

• ALT1:... that the Samsung Galaxy Alpha is the company's first smartphone with a metallic frame?
• ALT2:... that ExtremeTech felt the Samsung Galaxy Alpha was designed to compete against the next iPhone?
• Reviewed: The Making of the English Landscape

Created by ViperSnake151 (talk). Self nominated at 03:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC).

• Comment Look, I'm sorry, but a hook about how a cell phone, on actual release, didn't completely match rumored specs? Wow. I think we also need to think about DYK acting as an unwitting buzz generator for a new product (the lower-than-anticipated screen resolution notwithstanding.) EEng (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Why not the third one? ViperSnake151  Talk  03:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Just my opinion but yes, I think ALT2 would be better. EEng (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Uggg, so boring. I'm voting 2, but it seems we should get some punchier ones. How about "disappointingly low-resolution screen" but "the most luxurious feeling Galaxy" Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:20 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

• Full DYK review needed, including whether ALT2 is interesting enough. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Review@ViperSnake151: I am going to say ALT1 (the metallic case). First note: In the "Reception" section it says about critics praising and quotes in quotes "premium". This is not sourced. note: The first section "development" begins "Samsung has historically been criticized for..." This section provides two refs, but is fully unsourced. note: The next sentence tells us a business announcement for July 2014, but this date and actual announcement is not sourced, though the rest of that part, the figures, does seem to be sourced. The next bit about where Samsungs share has gone is almost correct, but it says things like LG being one of the major places their share has gone while totally skipping Apple which has taken 10 times more market share in that quarter (0.1% and 1% resp.) The "alleged quad HD display". These citations in these two sentences (6, 7, 8,) are not inlined properly and the source says it is not alleged but is announced by Samsung to be a fact. After that, it would pass fully.. ~ R.T.G 15:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• RTG, please be sure to use one icon with your reviews to indicate where the article stands. In case you aren't aware of the differences between the ones meaning that more work is needed, the "?" means there are no more than a couple of minor issues, the "/" means that there are significant to major issues, and the "X" means the issues are just about impossible to fix. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Done, but could you think about this @BlueMoonset:, in the editing box those symbols are displayed here on DYK, but they aren't explained very well. There are six icons up there and their explanations are only from the filename. (assuming you would be the one to talk to about stuff like that) ~ R.T.G 16:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, RTG. The details are in the DYK Reviewing Guide. What's on the editing page above the window is just a reminder of things to be done in a review (for the icons, just the template you need for each icon). My summary above doesn't quite match the one on that page; it's how I remember/parse the problem levels. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• The link will do the same job thankyou :) ~ R.T.G 17:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's been over two weeks since the last comment here, and over a week since the nominator was pinged, yet there have been no edits to address the issues raised in the review or a response here asking for more time to do same. The remaining hook is not impressive and the nomination is now two months old, so I'm going to let this close. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)