Talk:MacBook Pro/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Criterion

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I am unable to understand the model numbers.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   17.1 of the MoS

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Reference 24 & 25 are not reliable. Emails need to be removed.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Major Sections of unsourced paragraphs.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Images are good to go, could use another image though.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Needs some more work before I can pass it.

Comments

Please do not change the status of the criterion; the reviewer will change them himself as needed.

Thanks for reviewing! I've got a few comments right off the bat. The criterion they relate to are bolded so you can see them better:

• Erm... edit wars? Please tell me where. Airplaneman ^talk 01:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Not edit wars (hence etc.), but reverts, you can see this in the article history. This is part of the GA Criteria. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• I don't understand what you want me to do with the article as it relates to MoS 17.1. May you please specify where? Thanks, Airplaneman ^talk 01:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Section 3, the timeline. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• The model numbers are just the characters Apple uses to identify them, much like a barcode you would see at the store. They specify which build and model the computer is. Airplaneman ^talk 01:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • What does /A mean? -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • BTW, I'm not sure that's prose, as it's in a chart... but that's just me being picky... Airplaneman ^talk 01:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Couldn't find a better place to put it. :P -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• References –  Doing... Airplaneman ^talk 01:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Unsourced PPs (notes for self):
    • MacBook_Pro#Discrete_MacBook_Pro
    • MacBook_Pro#Development
    • MacBook_Pro#Industrial_design
• In what area do I need more coverage? Airplaneman ^talk 01:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Take a look at your other article, Mac Pro. Look at the difference in the table of contents, I think there could be more put into this article like the Mac Pro. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about not providing details on why, I meant to, just somehow forgot. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)