Talk:Jeff Robbin/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 07:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

There is barely a start-class article's worth of material about Robbin himself here (WP:GACR #3a), padded out by only-vaguely-relevant details about the Apple products he was associated with (GACR #3b). For instance, we are told where he was born, and his university degrees (dubiously sourced: the source says he took computer science courses while our article says he has a computer science degree, not the same thing (GACR #2bc). The infobox but not the main text has a rough birthdate, again dubiously sourced to an article about something else that ambiguously states him as being 28 either when he founded a company or when Apple later bought it up (GACR #2bc). We do not know what kind of economic circumstances he grew up in, where he grew up, and where or when he obtained either of his degrees. Most of the product sections have barely two sentences in which Robbins even is mentioned. We are told he "was chosen to lead the iTunes team" but not by whom, when, or how long this was after the acquisition of SoundJam. The chronology is out of order (the iTunes section significantly overlaps with the iPod section) and gappy (we get no information from 2012 to 2018 and nothing from then to present). Was going from head of iTunes to a team leader on iPod a demotion? We don't know. None of the sources appears to be directly about Robbin. Does he even pass WP:GNG? If any of these sources has enough in-depth coverage of Robbin to meet that criterion, it doesn't show in the amount of coverage of him that it is used for in this article. The only image in the article is not of him; it is plausibly public domain but instead implausibly claimed to be an own-work CC-licensed image (GACR #6a). I think this is so far from meeting GACR 3, in particular, as to be a quick-fail (WP:GAFAIL #1). Additionally, this was already the main complaint in Talk:Jeff Robbin/GA1, and I don't think it has been adequately addressed (GAFAIL #5). I see that efforts have been made to find material for more content, but did not find much. I think not every topic is capable of reaching GA levels of completeness. This may be one that is not, at least not with the sources currently available. Indeed, I think it is close to needing to be tagged with notability (GAFAIL #3). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the detailed review, and, given that both nominations were quick-failed, I flatly apologise for the time waste and for my complete misunderstanding of not every topic is capable of reaching GA levels of completeness.; my interpretation of that was looser, but mine was clearly out of step with commonly accepted practice here. I won't ever renominate this article, and will be far more careful with any future GANs.
 * Addressing specific criticisms:
 * Undergraduate CS degree: fixed.
 * Age: removed
 * iTunes lead: Isaacson 2011 says after the acquisition, Robbin continued to lead the music software development team for the next decade; given that Isaacson was published roughly a decade after the acquisition, I don't want to read that as saying that he had stopped being the iTunes lead.
 * iPod: it wasn't a demotion/promotion, rather his iTunes team was tasked with working on the iPod software, which iTunes would sync with.
 * To be clear, even statements that don't mention Robbin's name (for example, Less than four months later, in January 2001, iTunes was released for free as part of Apple's digital hub strategy) are still supported by citations that mention Robbin by name. I've tried to avoid COATRACK, though I agree these are passing mentions.
 * The image: I do apologise for mislabelling that; obviously, only the cropping was my own work, but the template was indeed applied incorrectly.
 * DFlhb (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)