Wikipedia:Peer review/Intel Core i7/archive1

Intel Core i7

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because this article has received no rating and I want to know what should be improved to make this a Good Article

Thanks, Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 11:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've doen a little studying on this article and have come up with some improvements:


 * On the Performance section, this sentence "The Inquirer managed to get a 965 engineering sample to a core clock rate of up to 4GHz with fan cooling and Turbo Booster. This is quite impressive but may not be reachable on all home systems." This needs a reference, specifically to the Inquirer article that is beeing written about. "This is quite impressive" is a personal judgement, leave such things to the reader, they don't belong in an encylopedia.


 * Some of the references are sloppy; some are simply URLs copy-pasted into ref tags. This shouldn't be the case, all references should be put into a template, such as cite web, and have the following filled on a minimum level: URL, Title, Publisher, Access date. The following should be filled in where possible: Author, Publishment date, and if possible wikilink the Publisher field if there is an article.


 * Several statements need citation, a few have had tags placed on them for a while. This needs to be resolved, or the necessary statements deleted, verify or simplify basically.


 * There are a great deal of bullet points. This should be put in prose where possible, I think this is not unrealistic in some areas.


 * Some of the references are inappropriate, in that they are too informal. Forums and blogs shouldn't be cited, there's no verifiable statements, that's just regurgitating popular conception, and potentially the mistakes of amatures and opinionated 'nobodies'.


 * More images would be nice, but perhaps difficult to get hold of. This is only desirable, not policy.

I hope these are useful for you in making this article better, there is some way to go with this if you're hoping to make this into a GA. There is potential and with some determination and effort on these points, I'm sure it'll shape up to the task. It might be good to create a Future section and talk about upcoming models.