Talk:MacOS/GA1

GA Reassessment[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

A number of sections are inadequately cited, for instance History, Description, and Compatibility.

There is a request for citation tag that needs to be dealt with.

The Criticisms section needs to be cleaned up, and has been tagged as such since May 2008. Criticisms sections in general are not always a good idea, so it may be better to integrate the criticism into the body of the article.

All citations need to have full information given, including publishers and last access dates for web links.

Some of the External links seesm to be of dubious relevance to an encyclopedia article. Please review WP:EL and prune the list of the "how to" or discussion forum links.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with the fact tag and went through some of the EL's. The accessdates and publishers formatting is something a bot should do. It's tedious to expect editors to do this. I wish to have this article placed for community assessment unless you're willing to assist in repairing what you believe the faults to be. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While reviewers are encouraged to fix problems they find, it it not the job of the reviewer to repair faults with the article. Geometry guy 23:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2a of the good article criteria requires that articles be properly cited and sourced, tedious or not. I will help with tidying up the citations if I have the time to do so, but the most important issue is to provide inline citations for the unsourced sections of this article. If that has not been done by the end of the hold period, and as a result this article is delisted, then a community reassessment may be appropriate. In the meantime however, why don't we just fix up this article so that remains a hypothetical possibility? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a number of changes to the citation formats (there should only be one) used in this article to demonstrate what is currently expected of a GA, and I will continue to help where I can. I would remind all interested editors though that it is not my responsibility to fix this article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also did my best to integrate the criticisms into relevant places in the article. I think it looks a lot better. Still not sure where to stick the last remaining criticism. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers on all the help. I never meant to imply you had to do anything (like another editor said), but I think you knew that anyhow. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- As most of these issues remain outstanding, this article has now been delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]