Wikipedia:Peer review/MacBook Air/archive1

===MacBook Air=== This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get a GAN later this year.

Thanks, m o ɳ o  04:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/MacBook Air/archive1.


 * Comments from  — fetch ·  comms  
 * Expand the lede per WP:LEDE; perhaps link/elaborate on "ultraportable" in the lede (if there's no link, try "ultraportable laptop" or something to that effect)
 * ✅-- m o ɳ o 03:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Add more info to the refs--some missing publishers, etc.
 * Refs 6 and 8 should be in the "Notes" section instead
 * ✅: There have been additions to the references; numbers are screwed up.-- m o ɳ o  03:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Move the ones about GB counts to notes.  — fetch ·  comms   15:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The "Overview" jumps in a bit too quickly; add an intro sentence about its design or something
 * ❌-- m o ɳ o   02:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Watch for unreferenced paragraphs throughout (for example, paragraph 2 of "Overview")
 * Found diagram at this page; see here. I'll continue to look; is that acceptable?-- m o ɳ o  03:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything other than their site? Otherwise, it'll work, I suppose.  — fetch ·  comms   15:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Slim pickins. Found a different Apple ref here.-- m o ɳ o  16:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅: added ref from Apple.

❌-- m o ɳ o   02:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "The current model has a low voltage, small form factor Core 2 Duo "Penryn" with 6MB of cache, running on a 1066 MHz bus."--any way to link the last bit, or elaborate on cache/bus, etc. I understand it, but some may not.
 * "Unlike the rest of the MacBook family, the MacBook Air has no directly user-replaceable parts."--what does directly mean here, as it seems the battery is replacable, and the HD as well?
 * Battery cannot be replaced, hard drive upgraded. Will clarify.-- m o ɳ o  03:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there's more you can add to "Environmental considerations"
 * ✅ with refs.


 * Why is "Security" indented?
 * ✅-- m o ɳ o 04:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "The flip-down hatch is a tight fit for some headphone plugs and USB devices, requiring users to purchase an extension cable."--what hatch is this, now?
 * See image. Will clarify and reword.-- m o ɳ o  03:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Several"--fix, please.
 * Not sure how many; will look up.-- m o ɳ o 03:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Several[quantify] MacBook Air users[26] since the release of the first-generation product have complained of overheating causing CPU lockup. ." should be "Since the release of the first-generation product, several[quantify] MacBook Air users[26] have complained of overheating that caused CPU lockup."
 * Maybe general expansion as you feel necessary.
 * -- m o ɳ o 03:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 — fetch ·  comms   23:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * deal with the image gallery tag. Please rm the iSight logo, not applicable under fair use here.  — fetch ·  comms   15:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅-- m o ɳ o 16:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments from Airplaneman   ✈

These are just some things that would be good to see in a GA that FC might not have touched on already:
 * If you could, try to fill out this article with more writing. This can be done by adding reception section(s) and details on each release.


 * Generally, a section or subsection is expected to have more than just a meager sentence (such as in MacBook Air). Try filling out or combining extremely short few-sentence paragraphs as they tend to break up the flow of prose. See here as well as here for some more info.

Happy editing, Airplaneman   ✈  03:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the lead still needs expansion. Once the article is filled out, you should ideally have two solid paragraphs for the intro. Airplaneman   ✈  03:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * More: I'm adding citation needed tags to the article as needed so it doesn't need to happen at during a GAN. I've also cleaned up and used in the Specifications section.  Airplaneman   ✈  22:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * More from  — fetch ·  comms  
 * ref 45 is a blog, please remove/find alternate
 * ✅--  m o n o   22:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * what makes ref 44 reliable, in your opinion?
 * ✅--  m o n o   22:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * make sure refs are consistent (43, for example, needs some periods, maybe use a template?)
 * ✅--  m o n o   22:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * also, what makes macrumors a reliable source? It's mainly speculation to me.
 * ❌ When reporting on announcements from Apple, MacRumors is pretty reliable.--  m o n o   22:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ref 42 has two periods after Apple Inc, as does 41, 18, 19, 7, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10. Please check all...
 * ✅--  m o n o   22:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ref 39 says "Crave" but it seems to me that it's on Cnet? Please list Cnet as the publisher as well.
 * ✅--  m o n o   22:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * per the above, fill in any possible missing ref info (like 35 has an author that could be added)
 * ❌ Couldn't find author.--  m o n o   22:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's Rob Beschizza, please look right under the title and to the left.  — fetch ·  comms   20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * wait, 39 ref = 36 ref, please combine
 * ✅--  m o n o   22:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 29 and 30 missing ref info. Engadget is technically a blog, not the best source.
 * --  m o n o   22:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ref 28 is in a funky format (needs accessdate, author name should be Last, First--same goes for 33 and 32)
 * Eh, AppleInsider (24)... mostly rumors. Anything more reliable?
 * I have opened a discussion about rumor sites for these articles at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.}}--  m o n o   02:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ref 11 Newsweek should be italicized. Same goes for any publication title (but not the actual publisher)--that's the |work= param in cite web/news
 * ✅--  m o n o   21:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * any real diff. between refs 12 and 13?
 * ✅. combined.--  m o n o   21:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * refs 22/23 wikis, unreliable
 * ✅--  m o n o   21:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ref 21 needs pub/work, has extra quotation marks
 * ✅--  m o n o   21:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * daring fireball (20) link dead, is unreliable anyhow
 * ✅--  m o n o   21:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 25, iFixit, not iFixIt
 * ✅--  m o n o   21:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Bleeding Edge (31) is reliable how? The url says it's in a blog archive


 * please get consistency! Especially accessdates--got some 25 May 2010, some 2010-05-25, and some May 25, 2010. Citation templates do the YYYY-MM-DD iirc.
 * ✅ as YYYY-MM-DD. --  m o n o   21:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 — fetch ·  comms   02:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please provide the revision you used for this. That way, I can actually figure out which ref is which.--   m o n o   03:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The one with my timestamp, of course. 02:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC).  — fetch ·  comms   23:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are some of the Apple link titles italicized?  — fetch ·  comms   21:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * GAN checklist

-- m o ɳ o  02:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Neglecting to assess the refs and such because that needs to be addressed still.  — fetch ·  comms   23:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)