Now that 1.1.1 fixed the crashing bug on searching, Articles has become my primary Wikipedia app on the iPad. Visually the app is more pleasing than any of the other options, with the polished and intuitive interface that is a hallmark of good iPad (and iPhone, for that matter) apps. My only real regret with the app -- and the reason I can only give it 4 stars rather than five -- is that unlike other wikipedia apps, there is no way to view the table of contents for an article and jump to a particular entry. While the omission does not bother me on the iPhone counterpart to this app, I do find the lack of a TOC for articles to be grating on the iPad version for some reason. Maybe I am just more forgiving on a small screen like the iPhone. But if that omission doesn't matter to you, Articles is hands-down the most pleasant to use of the iPad Wikipedia apps I have tried.

While this is certainly the most attractive iPad Wikipedia viewer, and v1.1.1 eliminated the crashing bug from v1.1, some aspects of using it are counterintuitive. 1. When you type in a search query, you don't hit return to initiate the search. Instead, a popover in the text field appears and you select a result from that list. Hitting return hides the keyboard and doesn't start a search. On one hand, this saves you the step of having to choose results from a list, but on the other hand, this isn't how MobileSafari behaves. 2. There is no quick table of contents. You have to scroll through the entire article to get to what you want. 3. When an article is done loading, which is indicated by a progress bar in the address bar (as in Safari 3 on Mac OS X), there is a split second delay before the article actually appears. On the plus side, when the crashing bug was discovered on iPad launch day, Sophie had it fixed in one day. These are the kinds of developers you should support.

Not worth a dollar when better readers are available for FREE. Buggy, counterintuitive and in need of refinement. An application with potential just means it doesn't measure up - this app has "potential".

My same complaint with your iPhone edition...for anyone that uses wikipedia for research or actual reference and not just casual reading, without a table of contents to jump around from, this app isn't very functional (as beautiful as it is). Until then i'm back to Wikipanion.

Articles is pretty, but there are problems: scrolling isn't smooth, search isn't immediate. Better Wikipedia apps are available (and free for that matter). Wikipanion is a better choice.

This is a pretty app, but like others have said before me, using it is a different story. It really needs to be smoothed out. Pinching to enlarge or shrink text feels very buggy and uncontrollable to a certain extent. Also, you can't type in enter after a search. For costing money, right now, this app is not worth it. Go with wikipad, at least until they update this application to work better

I don't understand the hype over this app. Not only is it far inferior to the free wikipanion app, unlike that it also cost money. I like the iphone version despite it's shortcomings, but all these have been amplified in the iPad version. No use of the bigger screen provided by the iPad and still a serious lack of features - most importantly TOCs for articles. Finally I also find the user interface to be very clunky and poorly integrated with the general ipad interface (e.g. No difference between landscape or portrait views). I truly hope this app gets better in future - for now the free alternative is so much better

For 99 Cents this app is a bit of a bummer. For $3 or more I would have been seriously disappointed. Here are some of the pluses (+) and minuses (-) I have encountered so far: (+) Beautiful visual design, great craftsmanship (+) Good legibility despite lack of flexibility (see below) (-) No "search" button to initiate a search; requires a tap in a tab instead; counterintuitive (-) Slow and very jerky text-scrolling (BIG minus here!) (-) Not very flexible; no custom font families; over-designed & counterintuitive font resizing (-) No navigation within an article (tappable table of contents) (-) Wooden desktop metaphor wastes valuable real estate on-screen (-) No universal iPhone/iPad version; always strikes me as a money grab by the developer I really wanted this app to be great, a nifty little tool that makes exploring Wikipedia even more fun. But I'm afraid that, while it is a very pretty app, it falls far short of my expectations. Don't get me wrong, I am as much a sucker for a pretty face as the next guy but beneath the rather shallow surface, this app is neither well designed (which is not the same as "pretty") or overly functional. "Pretty" gets you noticed, but by itself it doesn't get you "kept around". This app is akin to the stereotypical cheerleader that is stunning to look at but painful to talk to. The free alternatives out there offer much, much more.

A bit upset that hours after i purchased Articles at $4.99 they lower the price to .99 and claim they weren't happy with the current status of the iPad app. Shouldn't this decision have been made earlier? Couldn't they refund the $4 to customers willing to take a chance on the app given the quality of the iPhone app?

Every time I try and load an article, it crashes! Go ahead and turn the iPad to landscape mode and search for "cafe trident". By the time you get to the typing the 'i' it crashes! I want a refund !

Crashes constantly on common searches. Nice design, but made fairly useless by bugs.

Crashy. I'm sure it'll get fixed, but until then, buyer beware.

Articles looks terrific on the iPad - I just wish it didn't crash two out of three times when trying to enter a search term. I'm sure a fix is being developed, but it's a shame such a crash-prone version was released for iPad Day One.

A simple and simply perfect interface to wikipedia that leaves you free to enjoy the content rather than the container. I love it. As for the reviews mentioning crashing, it works well, without crashes, for me. It's also important to remember that developers didn't get devices to test on, so if there are issues they'll likely be resolved soon.

Makes Wikipedia even more addicting. Great interface and very responsive. Exporting and sharing features work great. Needs a few minor things like table of contents and ability to word search within articles.

Looks beautiful, loaded up pages as quickly as the internets allow and makes it easy to quickly get lost in any number of subjects. No problems for me but I saw the developer on Twitter and she already submitted an update to deal with people who are.

It's a great app and it gets an A+ for design and UI, but there are a lot of bugs. Especially if you try to just type in a search prompt. It has a lot of potential, though.

Kitten tweets for promo codes says: That the developer is awesome and will come through and fix all crashes and bugs. It will be the greatest wikipedia app ever. (It already is). I don't have an iPad (yet) and I purchased this. Stupid? Maybe, but I owe it to the developer. :) Excitement! Caffeine! Energy! Impulse! Huzzah!

I'm definitely a huge fan of well designed iPhone OS apps, and this one fits the bill. However, there is definitely much more work on this thing before its 5 stars. Though its seriously close to being the perfect Wikipedia reader and saver. Take for instance scrolling. I'm not even sure if this is something you guys can fix, because its probably just an API call or something.... But Articles is definitely very shaky and jagged when scrolling on my iPad. I wouldn't call it smooth scrolling compared to any other application that provides scrollable text. Keep up the great work though!

Love the app on the iPhone. Even better on the iPad.

Beautiful application. Great user experience. One of my favorite apps, and most definitely the best Wikipedia browser available.

Love this app great UI, the developers rock a steal at 99 cents.

If you have any self-respect at all, you'll buy this application for wikipedia surfing. Seriously, this is the best.

Articles is a well-designed application that feels at home in Apple's iPad HIG. It's not as speedy as other iPad apps though — scrolling, for example, produces a low framerate and makes it feel like a lower quality application. If you can fix that, I'll update my review!

I realize the iPad hasn't been out long and developers need some time to work out the kinks. I think Articles for iPad, like the iPhone version, is the best Wikipedia app because of how gorgeous the presentation is, but it needs improvement. Scrolling is unusually slow and jerky (the iPhone version is smooth). A Table of Contents listing is needed, and what I'd *really* like to see is in-article searching, like some other Wikipedia apps offer. Also I'm not big on the pinch to resize text, it's a little awkward and I always end up with a size a little off from what I wanted. Think it would be better with text size controls like other iPad apps (iBooks, Instapaper, etc.) have, including a Reset to Default button.