Jump to content

Talk:Mac Pro/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: MWOAP (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Good Job!

  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:
    Not needed. No copyright images.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


To Fix List

[edit]

About sourcing every bullet point in the software and hardware requirement sections... I can't find a source that says this directly:

OS Minimums – The lowest version of the operating system that will support the Mac Pro is Mac OS X version 10.4.7. Earlier versions will not boot the computer.

It's logical, though, as earlier versions did not have the software to support booting up the yet unreleased Mac Pro. Is it OK to keep or should I just remove it? Airplaneman talk 05:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, it's just the "Hardware requirements" section to reference now! Airplaneman talk 05:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, it still has to go thought. I tried looking for sources myself and couldn't find anything. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 16:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, deleting. Airplaneman talk 23:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done everything. Airplaneman talk 23:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Reference 26 is I think dead, or requires registration. Reference 24, 31, and 17 is not acceptable per WP:RS. Reference 25 is another wiki, fails WP:RS. This puts some parts under questioning. Please find different references. I can only hold this for a few more days. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Airplaneman talk 21:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We might want a comment about how the original Mac Pros don't support Mountain Lion due to the EFI32 EFI mode (links like http://best-mac-tips.com/2012/07/14/mountain-lion-compatible-apple-mac-hardware/ mention this.)Belltower (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
Where, exactly? Airplaneman talk 19:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found and  Fixed. Airplaneman talk 21:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images - found three more. Airplaneman talk 21:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Pro Readability Report, I have a concern about how readable the article is. I will take a more indepth look at my next chance. Also, three or four dead links on refs per Report for Mac Pro. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The checklinks displayed no dead links when I looked at it. I'll try to make it more readable. Thanks, Airplaneman talk 00:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I screwed the link, here it is. [3]. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing...Airplaneman talk 18:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Airplaneman talk 06:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Lack of information about "disquiet" in the professional user community

[edit]

For over a year now, the Mac Pro's _professional_ user community has been complaining about the amount of time it has taken for Apple to update this particular product line. This relates in particular to the technical specs of the machine, which are becoming increasingly less "top of the range". This professional consternation has been widely reported in the online IT press. The Facebook campaign "We Want a New Macpro" has in a short time snowballed from 54 Likes on 17 May [[4]] (Warning link site not NPoV!) to nearly 18,000 Likes (as of 12-JUN-2012), for example.

This disquiet among professional users is newsworthy because many of them (e.g. professional video editors, 3D modellers, etc) are locked-in to the Apple platform (in terms of the time/training/hardware/software and other related costs of changing platforms) but are becoming increasingly suspicious that Apple is starting to ignore professional users in order to focus on the consumer and home market.

Because of the newsworthiness of this topic, it deserves at least a brief mention in the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.103.146 (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mac_Pro/GA1&oldid=1144714838"