Jump to content

Talk:MacOS/GA1: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs)
Line 16: Line 16:


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

: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. [[User:Nja247|Nja247]] ([[User talk:Nja247|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nja247|contribs]]) 09:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:27, 5 November 2008

GA Reassessment

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 (talkcontribs) 09:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]