Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Macintosh/1

Macintosh[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist per consensus below. Geometry guy 22:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was listed as a GA yesterday. I am starting a community reassessment because I noticed that there are dead links in the references, one outstanding {{citation needed}} tag, and several portions of uncited text. This kind of article isn't my thing, and I don't feel qualified to make a full individual review, so I am bringing so that others can assess whether or not the article meets the other criteria. This follows discussion at User talk:Usb10 and comments left by another editor at Talk:Macintosh/GA1.--Beloved Freak 23:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support delisting the article until the issues are dealt with, as the review did not seem thorough enough. I'd be happy to address any issues. ℳono 23:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mono. I am terribly sorry, I just didn't notice those problems in the article. However, I think if we fix the problems we might be able to try nominating it again, this time with the reviewer being more careful ;). Usb10 ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 00:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a section right above the GA review called "Article Vision" that was a conversation between me and HereToHelp about the focus of the article; he went on wikibreak in the middle of it (real life exists :)). Ryan Norton 09:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist as the major problems as I see it (unsourced sections and lack of focus) are too great to be dealt with now, or, for that matter, in a one-week GAN. I wonder why the nominator nominated it without first addressing these glaring issues. —fetch ·comms 01:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - this article has many issues that should have been dealt with before a GAN, which are highlighted in the article's recent FAR, such as the lack of focus and unsourced statements. The nominator also supports delisting, so… Airplaneman ✈ 03:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Look why was it nominated in the first place without someone noticing some of this stuff? I just realized that there was more problems in the article than I thought there were. Usb10 ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the reviewer's responsibility to assess the quality of an article. ℳono 19:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nominator should've addressed the issues first anyway; you speak as if you knew there were problems and went ahead with it anyway...? Airplaneman ✈ 12:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks like this is heading for a close as delist. I would also encourage editors to check the reliability of the sources used: for instance, is folklore.org a reliable source? Geometry guy 20:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of folklore.org. We should try to get the references fixed so that they are more reliable (if this "folklore.org" is cited; it doesn't sound too reliable but you can't tell a book by it's cover) and get the dead links fixed somehow. Usb10 ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 14:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folklore.org appears to have at least something to do with Andy Hertzfeld,[1] who apparently was a "key member of the original Apple Macintosh development team". Whether or not he actually owns or runs the site, I don't know. It also looks like pretty much anyone can submit a story,[2] although I don't know what kind of fact checking they do before accepting or rejecting submissions. Having said that, it looks like most (if not all) of the stories used as sources in the article are written by people who have something to do with Apple. It needs to be looked into further, but it may count as a reliable self-published source.--Beloved Freak 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]