Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mac Pro/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:11, 12 May 2007.

---

Mac Pro

After a flurry of edits just after this machine was introduced, the form and general shape of the current article emerged. I'm made some edits to cluster physical vs. logical (electrical) topics and added bandwidth numbers, but little new content has been added for some time.

The article is not a review or discussion, it's about the machine. For those looking for a review or in-depth technical overview, there are many good examples of those, like Anand's. I would argue that article, as it stands, is perhaps the best succinct description of the Mac Pro available anywhere on the net.

In terms of FA, I think it meets the criterion with ease:

1. I think it's very well written,
   1. it is succinct, but nevertheless covers all of the important technical features of this machine, as well as some of its quirks.
   2. it is easy to read without interruption, flowing from the top to bottom starting with the "most internal" parts (processor and memory) and slowly moving to the "most external" (the case)
   3. I, and many others, have aggressively checked the article for factual accuracy, and provided enough references to make checking any of these statements easy.
   4. it is neutral, simply talking about the machine. It appears free of any sort of weasel words or fanboi comments
   5. it is stable, at least in terms of content. there have been structure changes, but these are re-arrangements of existing statements. additions of new material are limited to the new model recently introduced, and a mention of the audio support, which was lacking
2. it seems to follow the style guide -- but I would be curious to know if you reviewers think the Overview section could be broken up with subheadings?
3. images are limited, another question for the reviewers.
4. I think it is a canonical example of summary style.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maury Markowitz (talk • contribs) 16:39, May 4, 2007

• Comment, the formatting of the references is poor. I always get flamed for suggesting the use of {{Cite web}}, but I'd like to seem them formatted in a similar fashion where the date of retrieval and such are mentioned. --Phoenix (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Q: is there an easy way to edit these I don't know about? I'd be happy to convert them, but they are so hard to edit and easy to break I find them too much work to bother with. Maury 13:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A: Actually it wasn't that hard, but a tool would still be nice. Maury 14:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, there isn't really a tool to do it and that's obviously one of the negatives with cite.php. Once one becomes accustomed to using the template, it gets easier. --Phoenix (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, it lacks pretty much. The lead is too short and the refs are poorly formatted and too few as well. Also, the article could do with some review by an uninformed reader since I believe it's full of incomprehensible technical language. //Halibutt 17:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose—1a and 2a. Desperately needs a copy-edit. (And I'm a Mac user.) Tony 00:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you expand on these comments a bit? I don't know what you mean by it lacks "pretty much". I'd also like to know what you mean by the refs being poorly formatted, I just spend a non-zero amount of time editing them, so I'd like to know what's wrong so I don't do it again. Maury 17:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose as it's bit listy in some parts, but that's expected in an article of this nature. The lead could be expanded to better summarize the article, and as mentioned above, the prose needs a good copyedit. --Phoenix (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've tried to incorporate all of these comments. What do I do to get a little motion on this? Maury 19:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Research the edit-history pages of FAs on related topics. From the edit summaries and comparisons, identify the copy-editors. Get to know their work, and show them that you're familiar with it when you ask for a favour. Tony 10:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.