Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Apple Inc./1

Apple Inc.

 * Article (Edit &middot; History) &middot; Article talk (Edit &middot; History) &middot; Watch article &middot; Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Delist. Clear concerns about the prose and referencing have not been addressed Geometry guy 08:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is full of tags and is of slightly low quality to be a GA Nergaal (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Question. What tags? I don't see any at present. Also, can you be more specific about the article's deficiencies? It's helpful if you can provide examples. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delist. It's poorly written: "It is said that Jobs was immediately convinced that all future computers would use a GUI, and decided to turn over design of Apple's next project, the Apple Lisa, to produce such a device. The Lisa was named after Jobs' daughter (however, a bacronym,[18] Local Integrated Software Architecture, was coined). He was eventually pushed from the group due to infighting ..." as just one example. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delist. Unencyclopedic and poorly written. The lead is tortuous, overlinked, and doesn't really summarize the article. Is there a reliable secondary source for the narrative of the article? It reads as original research by synthesis at the moment (e.g. with its section titles - "The Golden Age" and so on): this is the company equivalent of a new biography, rather than an encyclopedia article. Geometry guy 21:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist I would fully agree with the above assessments. The article strays too far into entertainment, using peacock language.  The lack of reliable secondary sources in the main part of the article also seems problematic.  There are literally HUNDREDS of books written about Apple.  Can we not directly cite any of them?  The article also has many statistics and data, which are not directly backed up by specific cites.  As one example "The iMac sold close to 800,000 units in its first five months and helped return the company to sustained profitability for the first time since 1993." is ENTIRELY uncited, yet it contains both a statistic AND a superlative statement.  This article is FAR from GA status as an encyclopedia article.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  18:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist. The article is poorly written. Majoreditor (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)