Wikipedia:Peer review/MacBook (2006–2012)/archive2
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer review/MacBook/archive2)
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to submit it to FAC.
Thanks, Horserice (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- One thing at a time? I'll review it in a few hours. HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like a solid article. My biggest question is, why are the sections of models backwards? I think chronological order overrides recentism. Many of the data points are stated both in prose (sometimes twice) and tables. Some of the subsection headers could be removed. Make sure to indicate that the battery life is as claimed by Apple, and if you can find other sources, indicate both Apple's move towards internal, non-removable batteries, and the criticism this has garnered, including third-party battery tests (try macworld.com). Other than that, finding reliable sources for tech specs is a challenge we're trying to work out, without much success, at the Macintosh FAR. To gain featured status would be extremely difficult given the topic; it would have to look something like PowerBook 100. Good status, though, is entirely doable. HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. I have no idea why the sections are backwards. I'll try to find some more references for the battery life. For the specs, aren't the links to Apple's site enough? And since you brought up the PowerBook 100 article, would it be better to group the criticism for all the models into one section that encompasses the entire article or just let it be? Horserice (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- There was some discussion about using Apple as a reference here, which might explain what HtH is trying to say. I'll help where I can here, too. Airplaneman ✈ 22:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. I have no idea why the sections are backwards. I'll try to find some more references for the battery life. For the specs, aren't the links to Apple's site enough? And since you brought up the PowerBook 100 article, would it be better to group the criticism for all the models into one section that encompasses the entire article or just let it be? Horserice (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like a solid article. My biggest question is, why are the sections of models backwards? I think chronological order overrides recentism. Many of the data points are stated both in prose (sometimes twice) and tables. Some of the subsection headers could be removed. Make sure to indicate that the battery life is as claimed by Apple, and if you can find other sources, indicate both Apple's move towards internal, non-removable batteries, and the criticism this has garnered, including third-party battery tests (try macworld.com). Other than that, finding reliable sources for tech specs is a challenge we're trying to work out, without much success, at the Macintosh FAR. To gain featured status would be extremely difficult given the topic; it would have to look something like PowerBook 100. Good status, though, is entirely doable. HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Polycarbonate unibody model" is unsourced.
- "Aluminum unibody model" could use some more sources (under that subsection design and the very first paragraph of the first subsection)
- Third paragraph under "Quality problems" is unsourced. Also, find more prose for that--it's really sparse.
- "iBook G3 (Clamshell)." link under first design subsection could use a piped link
- lede could be expanded a bit
—fetch·comms 06:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comments by Airplaneman ✈
I'll add to this over the coming days and weeks:
- Ideally, there should be a reception section for each model.
- Also, once that's done, how about adding some mention of reception in the lead?
- Talk:MacBook Pro/GA3 raises many of the issues in need of attention here, including Apple Inc. vs third party references.
- I think a bit more prose/model detail overall would be nice - this could be accomplished through reception sections, etc.
- Reply by Horserice
Sorry for the late reply, been busy for the last couple days. I've added a reception section for the unibody model and more battery references. I'll try and add more prose and references soon. Also, I think there definitely needs to be a picture of the unibody model in the article. All the current pictures are of outdated models. Horserice (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comments by David Fuchs
- Paragraphs by definition have at least three sentences; there are lots of one or two-sentence groupings throughout the article. These should be merged together, cut entirely, or expanded into true paragraphs.
- I'm concerned about the use of certain sources... I would think it would be best to use sources like MacWorld and PC/Mac magazines over things like MacRumors, Faqintosh, etc. Some sources are simply unreliable (www.macbookrandomshutdown.com) and should be cut. If you can't find mention from a reliable source, it shouldn't be in the article.
- Why is there no reception information for the original MacBook? Why is the best-selling sales information only in the lead and never discussed in the article? (Sales could be a section on its own.)
- In terms of layout, it would make more sense as a unified article to discuss each revision, then reception, and put technical specs at the end of the article (as the major points should be hit in the body anyhow.) Right now it feels more like a glorified list. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)