Talk:MacBook (2006–2012)/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

• There is a request for citation which needs to be dealt with.

• The Polycarbonate MacBook section is completely uncited.

• I'm concerned about the quality of some of the sources, notably Rae Whitlock's blog and www.macrumours.com.

• All sources need to have full information, including publisher and date last accessed.

• Last accessdates should be formatted consistently. At present some are in US format, some international format and others in ISO format.

• Some of the External links look suspiciously like spam, such as the buyers guide. I'm dubious that the disassembly guide can be justified either, on the basis that wikipedia is not a "how to" manual. Please review WP:EL.

• The lead is too short to adequately summarise the article.

• There is no information on the commercial success or otherwise of the MacBook.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• • As these issues remain unaddressed, this article has now been delisted.

Reply

1. Deleted
2. Added source from Apple.com
3. Removed dubious sources
4. About accessdates and formats -- Can't a bot do this? This is not something editors should have to worry over. If people know how to set their time settings in their wikipedia preferences this is not an issue as it will display the date in your preferred format.
5. Not really, there are only guidelines as to the length needed for a lead and I believe they are met. You are welcome to suggest some additions, but this alone does not disqualify it from GA.
6. That is because Apple does not provide details about that type of information. No reason to fault the editors on this.

7. You gave little time to address this via your 'random' selection criteria.

Therefore I've added this to be reviewed for GA again.Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• • This article was assessed against the good article criteria, which can hardly be considered to be "random".
  • Eight days elapsed between the review and the delisting, more than enough time to fix the problems.
  • Had you made ir clear that you were working on these issues I would have had no hesitation in extending the seven day deadline until you believed that you had addressed the issues raised.
  • In my opinion the issues have not yet been adequately addressed, but good luck nevertheless with the GA nomination.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)