Talk:MacBook Pro/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: (klat) kirihS 03:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well written

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct

Prose is clear and well-written, except for the distracting tables (see 2(b))

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation

Seems to fall in line with WP:MOS

Factually written and verifiable

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout

References are OK where they are placed, however there seems to be unreferenced material (see (b))

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

Sorry, but there are way too many statistics in this article that are uncited. As a cursory look:

• The original 15" MacBook Pro was announced on January 10, 2006 during Steve Jobs' keynote at the MacWorld Expo.
• The 17" model was later unveiled on April 24, 2006.
• Almost the entirety of the Unibody MacBook Pro/Development and Industrial Design sections
• The updated Macbook Pro 13" and the 15" would each have up to seven hours of battery, while the 17" would keep its eight-hour capacity.

As such, this article is relatively unverifiable. This is a critical issue to fix before this article can pass GA.

(c) it contains no original research

No indication of original research

Broad in its coverage

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

Seems to cover the main aspects

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

I am concerned with the tables in the article. Are exact specifications down to the smallest detail (e.g., read/write speeds of every type of disc media) really necessary? I consider the tables distracting to the reader. Preferably this could be rewritten more generically in prose or in a more collapsed table that doesn't take the entire width of the article.

Neutral

it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Many references appear to come from apple.com. Preferably we would see more critical review of the product. Naturally, apple.com is appropriate for technical details, but certain things like the topics about battery life which seem to be hit hard in this article may be more appropriate with some reviews of those claims rather than just citing Apple's claims directly.

Stable

it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

No content disputes

Illustrated, if possible

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

All free

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

All images have captions

General comments

The table in the article is generally distracting to the reader. Preferably, this would be refactored so it doesn't take up the entire width of the article. This probably is impossible to do without removing some details, but the article is probably already over-detailed anyway, so this is OK. Beyond that, the article needs better adherence to WP:V. It is a well written article, don't get me wrong, but it's still a little rough around the edges.

Overall

Unfortunately, I have to fail this GA nomination at this time. The article seems to have come a long way since its first review, but it still needs some work. Unfortunately, I think some of the work since the first review has caused the information in this article to become over-detailed and thus distracting. Additionally, some details in the article are unreferenced and thus are unverifiable. We must ensure that we can meet verifiability policies before I can accept this article as a GA. --(klat) kirihS 03:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Weight?

One gripe I have with this otherwise good article is that it does not say a word about the models' respective/comparative weights, thus leaving out a piece of crucial information on its topic. Cinosaur (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to create a new section about the same thing: the article doesn't mention how much they weight. This is pretty critical information for a portable computer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You could add it to the wikitables. Airplaneman ✈ 19:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done (dimensions as well) Airplaneman ✈ 18:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)