Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/MacBook Air/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

MacBook Air

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get a GAN later this year.

Thanks, moɳo 04:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from —fetch·comms
  • Expand the lede per WP:LEDE; perhaps link/elaborate on "ultraportable" in the lede (if there's no link, try "ultraportable laptop" or something to that effect)
  • Add more info to the refs--some missing publishers, etc.
    • Refs 6 and 8 should be in the "Notes" section instead
Move the ones about GB counts to notes. —fetch·comms 15:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Done
  • The "Overview" jumps in a bit too quickly; add an intro sentence about its design or something
    • Watch for unreferenced paragraphs throughout (for example, paragraph 2 of "Overview")
Anything other than their site? Otherwise, it'll work, I suppose. —fetch·comms 15:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Not sure Slim pickins. Found a different Apple ref here.--moɳo 16:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Done: added ref from Apple.
  • "The current model has a low voltage, small form factor Core 2 Duo "Penryn" with 6MB of cache, running on a 1066 MHz bus."--any way to link the last bit, or elaborate on cache/bus, etc. I understand it, but some may not.

  Not done--moɳo 02:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Unlike the rest of the MacBook family, the MacBook Air has no directly user-replaceable parts."--what does directly mean here, as it seems the battery is replacable, and the HD as well?
  • I'm sure there's more you can add to "Environmental considerations"
  •   Done with refs.
  • Why is "Security" indented?
  • "The flip-down hatch is a tight fit for some headphone plugs and USB devices, requiring users to purchase an extension cable."--what hatch is this, now?
  • "Several[quantify] MacBook Air users[26] since the release of the first-generation product have complained of overheating causing CPU lockup. ." should be "Since the release of the first-generation product, several[quantify] MacBook Air users[26] have complained of overheating that caused CPU lockup."
  • Maybe general expansion as you feel necessary.

—fetch·comms 23:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Airplaneman ✈

These are just some things that would be good to see in a GA that FC might not have touched on already:

  • If you could, try to fill out this article with more writing. This can be done by adding reception section(s) and details on each release.
  • Generally, a section or subsection is expected to have more than just a meager sentence (such as in MacBook Air#Security). Try filling out or combining extremely short few-sentence paragraphs as they tend to break up the flow of prose. See here as well as here for some more info.

Happy editing, Airplaneman ✈ 03:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More from —fetch·comms
  • ref 45 is a blog, please remove/find alternate
  • what makes ref 44 reliable, in your opinion?
  • make sure refs are consistent (43, for example, needs some periods, maybe use a template?)
  • also, what makes macrumors a reliable source? It's mainly speculation to me.
  • ref 42 has two periods after Apple Inc, as does 41, 18, 19, 7, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10. Please check all...
  • ref 39 says "Crave" but it seems to me that it's on Cnet? Please list Cnet as the publisher as well.
  • per the above, fill in any possible missing ref info (like 35 has an author that could be added)
  • wait, 39 ref = 36 ref, please combine
  • 29 and 30 missing ref info. Engadget is technically a blog, not the best source.
  • ref 28 is in a funky format (needs accessdate, author name should be Last, First--same goes for 33 and 32)
  • Eh, AppleInsider (24)... mostly rumors. Anything more reliable?
  • ref 11 Newsweek should be italicized. Same goes for any publication title (but not the actual publisher)--that's the |work= param in cite web/news
  • any real diff. between refs 12 and 13?
  • refs 22/23 wikis, unreliable
  • ref 21 needs pub/work, has extra quotation marks
  • daring fireball (20) link dead, is unreliable anyhow
  • 25, iFixit, not iFixIt
  • Bleeding Edge (31) is reliable how? The url says it's in a blog archive
  •   Done
  • please get consistency! Especially accessdates--got some 25 May 2010, some 2010-05-25, and some May 25, 2010. Citation templates do the YYYY-MM-DD iirc.

—fetch·comms 02:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one with my timestamp, of course. 02:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC). —fetch·comms 23:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GAN checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
  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:  
    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):  
    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:  
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    Good luck with improving this article!

--moɳo02:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neglecting to assess the refs and such because that needs to be addressed still. —fetch·comms 23:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/MacBook_Air/archive1&oldid=1136085005"