Talk:MacBook Pro/GA3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer:

talk) 21:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 21:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for reviewing! I'll try to address the issues promptly. Airplaneman ✈ 22:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Links for more discrete MBP reviews (haven't gotten to yet)

Second opinion

I have a few concerns and recommendations:

  • Why is so much space dedicated to the latest Core i5/i7 MBPs in the introduction? This update should be summarised to something along the lines of: "During April 2010, Apple updated the MacBook Pro line. Intel Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs were introduced in the 15" and 17" models, while the 13" retained the Core 2 Duo processors. Video hardware was also uprated to newer nVidia units." Details regarding the charger unit, RAM, and resolution, et cetera, do not warrant a mention in the lead.


  • References in the lead: if the lead is meant to summarise the rest of the article, then it should not mention anything not mentioned below. Those references are redundant.


  • Dates: the exact date is not necessary in the lead, a month and year will be suffice. Save the day for the appropriate section(s).



  • "When first introduced, the MacBook Pro was noted for lacking FireWire 800 and S-Video ports, although FireWire 800 was added to later MacBook Pro models and was present in every version of the 17" models.": this sentence appears to soon. Mention the features first before the criticism.


  • "Both the 15" and 17" discrete model MacBook Pros come with" ---> "came with", these MBPs are no longer sold.



  • Use "30 percent" as opposed to "30%", per
    Wikipedia:MoS#Percentages
    . Ditto for all other percentages in the prose (but not tables, et cetera).



  • For the "Table of models", could the exact date of release for each revision be included? Apple's own "early 2006" designations are a little vague.
    •  Question: Could I possibly put them in subheadings? Airplaneman ✈ 00:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you clarify? I personally would add another row in the table titled "Release date" to sit below the "Model" heading. Also, I would make the tables permanently viewable? I know a previous GAN reviewer requested them to be hidden, but I find the tables very useful. It is easy enough to skip over the technical data, and it is also very easy to miss it as it is currently presented. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that's what I meant. I'll also unhide the tables. Airplaneman ✈ 23:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • "Model Numbers" ---> "Model numbers"





  • Don't capiltalise "Serial ATA" unless it's at the start of a sentence.


  • "e^ Corresponding Apple model name is unknown at this time": the "up arrow" link does not link to anything.


  • Could more information be added about the original models? The original models do not receive nearly as great a mention as the 2008 onwards unibody models.


  • "The optical drive slot was moved to the right side": from where?


  • "...but the FireWire 800 port was kept...": kept ---> retained.


  • "...a non user-removable lithium polymer battery...": some links would be good here.


  • "Aluminum Unibody" ---> "aluminum unibody".


  • "...and SD card reader ports on left side)[23], leaving only the...": move the reference after the commas, per
    WP:MoS
    .


  • "...the 13" gained an integrated nVidia GeForce 320M GPU...": link "GeForce 320M". Ditto for the 330M mentioned in the next sentence.
    • Will link to section
      GeForce 300 Series for the model name. Airplaneman ✈ 22:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]


  • "All models come with 4 GB of system memory": is 4 GB the maximum? What about the 8 GB upgrade?


  • The article mentions the battery "will hold 80% of its charge after 1,000 recharges". This is useless on its own, what about the discrete model (and the original unibody)? For the record, it's 300 cycles for the discrete.
    •  Doing... - looking for some refs. Airplaneman ✈ 00:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Battery Lifespan, Monitoring your MacBook's battery. "For Apple notebooks with removable batteries — such as previous generation MacBook and MacBook Pro computers — a properly maintained battery is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at 300 full charge and discharge cycles. You may choose to replace your battery when it no longer holds sufficient charge to meet your needs. The built-in battery in the new 13-, 15-, and 17-inch MacBook Pro is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at up to 1000 full charge and discharge cycles." OSX (talk • contributions) 12:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • "...would each have up to seven hours of battery..." ---> "would each have up to a claimed seven hours of battery life". It would have to be a miracle to actually get that number.
    •  Done - I've gotten 8.5 hours with ~20% brightness and no backlight editing Wikipedia with the mid 2009 version... :) Airplaneman ✈ 23:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know that Apple tests the battery under optimum temperature and humidity conditions, uses the lowest level of screen brightness, has AirPort switched on, and changes pages every 20 seconds or so (with Flash disabled I'm sure; see latest Apple vs. Adobe feud for more information). I have the "late 2008" 15" model and have not gotten much more than 3.5 hours. This is the model with the claimed 5 hour battery. Do you have the 17" screen size? These models have an 8 hour battery in "early" and "mid 2009" guises. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry; in my haste, I forgot to add that I had changed it to your recommendation. I have a 15" 2009 model :). Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 23:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • 15" vs. 15-inch: the article switches between the two. WP:MoS suggests the latter should be used in the prose, and the former in tables.


  • The "Reception" section mentions the 2009 and 2010 updates only, and strangely mentions the 2010 models first. Please make this section chronological.


  • A citation is needed for "They also called for the addition of HDMI and Blu-ray, saying..."


  • The section headings "Pre-Unibody Models" and "Unibody Models" should be de-capitalised.


  • "Intel x86 based Apple computers": "x86 based" ---> "x86-based".


  • "...and 7 32-bit & 64-bit": replace "&" with "and".


  • Can we remove the "Apple–Intel transition" box below the infobox? Granted, the MBP was the first Intel-based Mac, but it's not necessary. OSX (talk • contributions) 17:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wouldn't hurt to stay, wouldn't hurt to go. Removing, as the topic's already linked in the intro. Airplaneman ✈ 22:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks so much for giving a second opinion! Airplaneman ✈ 22:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I have responded to some of the points above. With regards to the addition of information about the discrete models, more should be added about the yearly changes, like "early 2008", et cetera. The unibody section deals with this quite well. Also, please fix up the dubious sources (one is is wiki) and the references tagged " [dead link]". OSX (talk • contributions) 12:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've responded to a few things above. I'll try to finish up the fixes tomorrow or Friday. Airplaneman ✈ 00:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll be done with a few more hours of work. What should I do with deprecated parameters in cite templates? Airplaneman ✈ 01:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've just finished making some changes to the technical specification tables, and I've come across a couple of issues. Firstly, the mid and late 2007 models are slightly different, so should be separated into separate columns. The late 2007 versions introduced a "Santa Rosa" chip, whatever that means. The November 1, 2007 addition of the 2.6 GHz processor and larger capacity (and faster) hard drive options signifies this late 2007 update.
 Not done (see below) -
Santa Rosa platform was a new chip platform. Arrandale was introduced in this current update in the 15" and 17" models. Airplaneman ✈ 23:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
There also seems to be an issue with the "Late 2008" update for the 17-inch discrete model. There is very little reference to this model online, and I have only managed to find one Apple source, Compatibility Labs Equipment List: Project X.
Well, it's better than nothing. I'll use it - thanks for finding it, as I was having trouble as well! Airplaneman ✈ 23:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the referencing, the article should use the {{cite web}} template as opposed to the {{citation}} version. I'll see if I can fix up the references another time, as the referencing is in need of some work. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick conversion of {{
talk) 17:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll continue my work on this article. I'm still not sure what parameter in the cite templates are deprecated, so I don't know what to look for and change when editing. I've tried to look it up, to no avail. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 23:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Santa Rosa - see http://www.macrumors.com/2007/11/01/apple-updates-macbooks-to-santa-rosa-gma-x3100/ and http://support.apple.com/kb/SP13. It seems like it was a quiet update, with only options added. I don't think there should be a separate section just for that. I think a mention that "available after November 1" should suffice in the table as well as a prose addition about the Santa Rosa option. What do you think? Airplaneman ✈ 00:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the late 2007 revision was minor, but it was an update nonetheless. Apple uses different model numbers, so I would like to see them separated, although it's up to you. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find the dead links. Airplaneman ✈ 04:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The link was not dead per se, but it was directing me to the "Apple iPhone 0S 4 Event". I've found the correct link and made the change. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it, although it wasn't really dead, just redirecting more than once. Also, since there are duplicates of footnotes in both the "Table of models" tables, you can use
talk) 04:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Sounds like a good idea to me. It's very difficult to manage the notes in the format currently used. It look me several previews before saving to get it right when I made some changes. I have implemented this style in list of Holden vehicles by series, so use that as a template if you like. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you;  Done. I believe I have addressed all of the above concerns. Airplaneman ✈ 00:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, I'm still not sure how to fix the deprecated reference parameters. Airplaneman ✈ 00:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which parameters are deprecated that are used in the article?
talk) 01:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Some access date parameters, as detailed here. It'd be extremely tedious to pick them out and fix manually. Airplaneman ✈ 03:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did them all.
talk) 03:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Okay, the article looks good now. I have a few more requests though:

  1. Mention of the late 2008 unibody upgrade to the 9600M GT GPUs,
  2. Mention of the mid 2009 deletion of the 9600M GT GPU in the base 15-inch model, and
  3. Mention of the mid 2009 model's improved screen.

With the above additions, I would be happy to grant this article good article status, although I will leave the final decision to Gary King as he initiated the review.

As a side note Airplaneman, if you ever intend to pursue featured article status for this article, the references will need some work. At the moment I feel that there are too many Apple.com citations, and not enough "quality" sources like magazines, et cetera. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Apple.com references seem to be for tech specs, which makes sense. If you source a magazine for tech specs, they will most likely have gotten it from Apple.com themselves.
talk) 15:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Not really. Out of 64 references, 30 are hosted by Apple, and only 15 of these are "Technical Specification" pages. When your relying on the manufacturer website for close to 50 percent of your references, that is too much. I have absolutly nothing against the use of Apple's own "Technical Specification" pages for use in the tables, but an additional 15 resources used elsewhere seems a little much.
All I am saying is such a reliance of Apple's own sources is unacceptable for a featured article. I only brought this up as a hint in case the nominator intended to take this article further than GA status. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks — noted; I'll try to trim them slowly from the article, favoring instead third party sources for anything and everything possible. I have added the requested information from above. On a side note, I'm thinking of working on MacBook Air next, hoping to have it ready for a GA nom sometime in June or July. Thanks again, Airplaneman ✈ 00:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks a lot better from when I first reviewed it. I think it meets the GA criteria now, so I'm passing it. Good job to everyone involved!
talk) 00:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for reviewing! Airplaneman ✈ 00:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, let me know when you want a review of the MacBook Air article, and I'll see what I can do. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MacBook_Pro/GA3&oldid=1136976300"