Jump to content

Talk:MacBook Pro/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

This is Archive 5, which contains discussions initiated in 2010.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:MacBook Pro/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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:

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

Trackpad click

In reference to this, I can understand what the original text meant. In that, only the bottom is truly clickable in the sense that it makes a noise when pressed (acting like the old button). Any trackpad's surface is usable, but not neccessarily clickable. I think a reword should be done, something like: The trackpad has also been enlarged with the entire pad being useable, with the approximately the bottom two thirds acting as a clickable button. Or something along those lines. NJA (t/c) 08:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Airplaneman talk 22:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:MacBook Pro/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

Well written

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
Pass 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
Pass 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
Pass Seems to cover the main aspects
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Don't Know 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.
Pass 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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:MacBook Pro/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gary King (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! I'll try to address the issues promptly. Airplaneman ✈ 22:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Links for more discrete MBP reviews (haven't gotten to yet)

Second opinion

I have a few concerns and recommendations:

  • Why is so much space dedicated to the latest Core i5/i7 MBPs in the introduction? This update should be summarised to something along the lines of: "During April 2010, Apple updated the MacBook Pro line. Intel Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs were introduced in the 15" and 17" models, while the 13" retained the Core 2 Duo processors. Video hardware was also uprated to newer nVidia units." Details regarding the charger unit, RAM, and resolution, et cetera, do not warrant a mention in the lead.


  • References in the lead: if the lead is meant to summarise the rest of the article, then it should not mention anything not mentioned below. Those references are redundant.



  • "...also introducing the built-in battery which was later used in the rest of the MacBook Pro line in June at WWDC 2009 and in the MacBook in October 2009.": change this to: "...also introducing the built-in battery which was later used in all MacBook Pros from June 2009 and in the MacBook from October 2009."


  • "When first introduced, the MacBook Pro was noted for lacking FireWire 800 and S-Video ports, although FireWire 800 was added to later MacBook Pro models and was present in every version of the 17" models.": this sentence appears to soon. Mention the features first before the criticism.





  • In the 2006 model's reception section, I see nothing but positive praise (except for the heat and de-tuned graphics). Were there no other complaints with this model? I certainly had a couple with mine. What about the discontinuation of the "premium compact" model (PowerBook 12")?


  • For the "Table of models", could the exact date of release for each revision be included? Apple's own "early 2006" designations are a little vague.

















  • The article mentions the battery "will hold 80% of its charge after 1,000 recharges". This is useless on its own, what about the discrete model (and the original unibody)? For the record, it's 300 cycles for the discrete.


  • "...would each have up to seven hours of battery..." ---> "would each have up to a claimed seven hours of battery life". It would have to be a miracle to actually get that number.
    •  Done - I've gotten 8.5 hours with ~20% brightness and no backlight editing Wikipedia with the mid 2009 version... :) Airplaneman ✈ 23:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I know that Apple tests the battery under optimum temperature and humidity conditions, uses the lowest level of screen brightness, has AirPort switched on, and changes pages every 20 seconds or so (with Flash disabled I'm sure; see latest Apple vs. Adobe feud for more information). I have the "late 2008" 15" model and have not gotten much more than 3.5 hours. This is the model with the claimed 5 hour battery. Do you have the 17" screen size? These models have an 8 hour battery in "early" and "mid 2009" guises. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)









Thanks so much for giving a second opinion! Airplaneman ✈ 22:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No worries. I have responded to some of the points above. With regards to the addition of information about the discrete models, more should be added about the yearly changes, like "early 2008", et cetera. The unibody section deals with this quite well. Also, please fix up the dubious sources (one is is wiki) and the references tagged " [dead link]". OSX (talk • contributions) 12:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure. I've responded to a few things above. I'll try to finish up the fixes tomorrow or Friday. Airplaneman ✈ 00:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I'll be done with a few more hours of work. What should I do with deprecated parameters in cite templates? Airplaneman ✈ 01:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've just finished making some changes to the technical specification tables, and I've come across a couple of issues. Firstly, the mid and late 2007 models are slightly different, so should be separated into separate columns. The late 2007 versions introduced a "Santa Rosa" chip, whatever that means. The November 1, 2007 addition of the 2.6 GHz processor and larger capacity (and faster) hard drive options signifies this late 2007 update.
 Not done (see below) - Santa Rosa platform was a new chip platform. Arrandale was introduced in this current update in the 15" and 17" models. Airplaneman ✈ 23:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
There also seems to be an issue with the "Late 2008" update for the 17-inch discrete model. There is very little reference to this model online, and I have only managed to find one Apple source, Compatibility Labs Equipment List: Project X.
Well, it's better than nothing. I'll use it - thanks for finding it, as I was having trouble as well! Airplaneman ✈ 23:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
With regards to the referencing, the article should use the {{cite web}} template as opposed to the {{citation}} version. I'll see if I can fix up the references another time, as the referencing is in need of some work. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I did a quick conversion of {{citation}} to {{cite web}}. Gary King (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll continue my work on this article. I'm still not sure what parameter in the cite templates are deprecated, so I don't know what to look for and change when editing. I've tried to look it up, to no avail. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 23:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

About Santa Rosa - see http://www.macrumors.com/2007/11/01/apple-updates-macbooks-to-santa-rosa-gma-x3100/ and http://support.apple.com/kb/SP13. It seems like it was a quiet update, with only options added. I don't think there should be a separate section just for that. I think a mention that "available after November 1" should suffice in the table as well as a prose addition about the Santa Rosa option. What do you think? Airplaneman ✈ 00:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the late 2007 revision was minor, but it was an update nonetheless. Apple uses different model numbers, so I would like to see them separated, although it's up to you. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Can't find the dead links. Airplaneman ✈ 04:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The link was not dead per se, but it was directing me to the "Apple iPhone 0S 4 Event". I've found the correct link and made the change. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Fixed it, although it wasn't really dead, just redirecting more than once. Also, since there are duplicates of footnotes in both the "Table of models" tables, you can use this method to merge them, if you want. It's not necessary, though, since everything's already in place. You might want to look into it, though, at least for future use. Gary King (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. It's very difficult to manage the notes in the format currently used. It look me several previews before saving to get it right when I made some changes. I have implemented this style in list of Holden vehicles by series, so use that as a template if you like. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you;  Done. I believe I have addressed all of the above concerns. Airplaneman ✈ 00:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
On a side note, I'm still not sure how to fix the deprecated reference parameters. Airplaneman ✈ 00:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Which parameters are deprecated that are used in the article? Gary King (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Some access date parameters, as detailed here. It'd be extremely tedious to pick them out and fix manually. Airplaneman ✈ 03:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I did them all. Gary King (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the article looks good now. I have a few more requests though:

  1. Mention of the late 2008 unibody upgrade to the 9600M GT GPUs,
  2. Mention of the mid 2009 deletion of the 9600M GT GPU in the base 15-inch model, and
  3. Mention of the mid 2009 model's improved screen.

With the above additions, I would be happy to grant this article good article status, although I will leave the final decision to Gary King as he initiated the review.

As a side note Airplaneman, if you ever intend to pursue featured article status for this article, the references will need some work. At the moment I feel that there are too many Apple.com citations, and not enough "quality" sources like magazines, et cetera. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the Apple.com references seem to be for tech specs, which makes sense. If you source a magazine for tech specs, they will most likely have gotten it from Apple.com themselves. Gary King (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Not really. Out of 64 references, 30 are hosted by Apple, and only 15 of these are "Technical Specification" pages. When your relying on the manufacturer website for close to 50 percent of your references, that is too much. I have absolutly nothing against the use of Apple's own "Technical Specification" pages for use in the tables, but an additional 15 resources used elsewhere seems a little much.
All I am saying is such a reliance of Apple's own sources is unacceptable for a featured article. I only brought this up as a hint in case the nominator intended to take this article further than GA status. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks — noted; I'll try to trim them slowly from the article, favoring instead third party sources for anything and everything possible. I have added the requested information from above. On a side note, I'm thinking of working on MacBook Air next, hoping to have it ready for a GA nom sometime in June or July. Thanks again, Airplaneman ✈ 00:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The article looks a lot better from when I first reviewed it. I think it meets the GA criteria now, so I'm passing it. Good job to everyone involved! Gary King (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing! Airplaneman ✈ 00:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
No worries, let me know when you want a review of the MacBook Air article, and I'll see what I can do. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MacBook_Pro/Archive_5&oldid=375421932"