Talk:Mac Pro

	Mac Pro has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 12, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 31, 2007 Peer review Reviewed February 6, 2010 Good article nominee Listed March 2, 2014 Good article reassessment Kept Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Apple Inc. High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Computing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as High-importance). Brands Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1 – 2006 → 2009 2 – 2010 → present

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: https://www.vice.com/en/article/pajmk9/who-kept-buying-the-mac-pro-everyone-hated https://www.theverge.com/23770770/apple-mac-pro-m2-ultra-2023-review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mac Pro/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWOAP (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Good Job!

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Not needed. No copyright images.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• OR & NPOV Tags
  •  Doing...Airplaneman ^talk 18:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• •  Fixed Airplaneman ^talk 06:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The small paragraph with 3 OR tags, below the OSes supported, "often" is a reliative term meaning not often, this needs sourcing or removal.
  •  Doing...Airplaneman ^talk 18:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• •  Fixed Airplaneman ^talk 06:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "diskutil" Wikilink or explain.
  • Where? I can't find it :(. Airplaneman ^talk 18:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Found it,  Fixed it. Airplaneman ^talk 06:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Under compatibility, all *s need rerferences.
  •  Doing...Airplaneman ^talk 18:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• References to deal with: 28 (requires subscription), 26 (dead), 7 (dead/issue). -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Doing... - is it OK if you don't close it today so I can fix the referencing issues under "compatibility"? All I need is time, which I'm short on at the moment. Thanks, Airplaneman ^talk 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Supplemented #28 with another ref saying the same thing. Airplaneman ^talk 00:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed #26. Airplaneman ^talk 00:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed #7. Airplaneman ^talk 00:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I can hold it over this weekend. No problem. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About sourcing every bullet point in the software and hardware requirement sections... I can't find a source that says this directly:

OS Minimums – The lowest version of the operating system that will support the Mac Pro is Mac OS X version 10.4.7. Earlier versions will not boot the computer.

It's logical, though, as earlier versions did not have the software to support booting up the yet unreleased Mac Pro. Is it OK to keep or should I just remove it? Airplaneman ^talk 05:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, it's just the "Hardware requirements" section to reference now! Airplaneman ^talk 05:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, it still has to go thought. I tried looking for sources myself and couldn't find anything. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 16:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, deleting. Airplaneman ^talk 23:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done everything. Airplaneman ^talk 23:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Reference 26 is I think dead, or requires registration. Reference 24, 31, and 17 is not acceptable per WP:RS. Reference 25 is another wiki, fails WP:RS. This puts some parts under questioning. Please find different references. I can only hold this for a few more days. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Airplaneman ^talk 21:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Fixed #24 [1]. Airplaneman ^talk 01:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Commented out #31 and the content it referenced.
•  Fixed #17 [2]. Airplaneman ^talk 01:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Number 26 seems to be working for me. Airplaneman ^talk 01:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We might want a comment about how the original Mac Pros don't support Mountain Lion due to the EFI32 EFI mode (links like http://best-mac-tips.com/2012/07/14/mountain-lion-compatible-apple-mac-hardware/ mention this.)Belltower (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where, exactly? Airplaneman ^talk 19:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found and  Fixed. Airplaneman ^talk 21:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images - found three more. Airplaneman ^talk 21:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Pro Readability Report, I have a concern about how readable the article is. I will take a more indepth look at my next chance. Also, three or four dead links on refs per Report for Mac Pro. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The checklinks displayed no dead links when I looked at it. I'll try to make it more readable. Thanks, Airplaneman ^talk 00:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I screwed the link, here it is. [3]. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing...Airplaneman ^talk 18:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Airplaneman ^talk 06:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For over a year now, the Mac Pro's _professional_ user community has been complaining about the amount of time it has taken for Apple to update this particular product line. This relates in particular to the technical specs of the machine, which are becoming increasingly less "top of the range". This professional consternation has been widely reported in the online IT press. The Facebook campaign "We Want a New Macpro" has in a short time snowballed from 54 Likes on 17 May [[4]] (Warning link site not NPoV!) to nearly 18,000 Likes (as of 12-JUN-2012), for example.

This disquiet among professional users is newsworthy because many of them (e.g. professional video editors, 3D modellers, etc) are locked-in to the Apple platform (in terms of the time/training/hardware/software and other related costs of changing platforms) but are becoming increasingly suspicious that Apple is starting to ignore professional users in order to focus on the consumer and home market.

Because of the newsworthiness of this topic, it deserves at least a brief mention in the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.103.146 (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]