Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apple Macintosh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Apple Macintosh

Peer review 1 and 2 | FAC 1

This is the second nomination for this article. Several people have done an excellent job on this, and I formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Macintosh to work on it collectively together. The result is excellent. The article has a lead, image copyright status/sources are good, there are references, footnotes, the grammar/spelling is good, the flow is good, and its not too long and has been improved a lot since the last FAC. Please do not object for the 41k article size, there are FAs that are more than 60k that have not been objected. — Wackymacs 08:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak Oppose Firstly, excellent article. It is reasonably clearly laid out, reasonably well referenced and certainly exhaustive. The photos are all in "good copyright nick". But it is too long. Yes, I know there are longer FAs, but this one could be shortened (and besides, maybe they need shortening too). One way may be to go down the route that the Jan Smuts editors have chosen: make a number of sub-articles that are in-depth expositions of the main article. I know that the "history" section already does this, but I think it ould be done more; ie on this page there needs to be less text, and on the sub-pages more. I would definitely support if that was done. As it is, I am weakly opposing, but if lots of people support I will change to neutral. Batmanand 11:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Support. We've done a lot of work here, and I think we've improved it substantially. I'll try to cater to your request; but besides maybe the hardware part most of the sections are too short to merit "outsourcing". But we've all come a long way (Wackymacs forgot to mention that it was the improvement drive article once) and I think that for all of this work the article should be recognized. --HereToHelp (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Support—It's very good, thanks to Wackymacs et al. Other longish FACs have been approved—e.g., Microsoft—and here, I think readers will want to access the info in one place.Tony 03:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Support—Good, well written information. Useful images that contribute well to the article. --TangentIdea 02:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Support—Good article, just slightly above 40KB, but justified with the depth and clarity of the information presented. Good number of pictures. Altogether a great FA. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 08:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Information presented in a clear and well-organized way; length is adequate without being overbearing. Please don't ruin it with a Trivia section. Anville 10:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
As you wish; no trivia section! I couldn't find anything to put in it, so I had given up anyway. --HereToHelp (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, mostly because it's way too long. Also, the color coding in the Timleline of Macintosh models needs to be explained. Another problem is that that section consists entirely of a single-use template, which should be subst'ed and then deleted. --Angr (t·c) 13:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As others have said, the length of the article is because the article covers all the topics of the subject in the same place in a great length of detail which is good because its really comprehensive. There are other featured articles that are over 60k, this is only just over 40k. — Wackymacs 14:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Just because other FAs were too long doesn't make it okay. I would have opposed them too if I had known about them. I think a lot of the history can be moved to History of Apple Computer or Mac OS history, and duplication with those articles can be deleted. --Angr (t·c) 16:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Here's a classic example of an article that many readers will want to be inclusive; areas such as the history, the software, and market share are integrally linked in their technical and historical details. Perhaps a few details could be trimmed, but not much, in my view, without detracting from what is a logical, flowing, comprehensive account. I'm happy for the length to be retained. Tony 01:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object on the following grounds: First, Macintosh and Mac are both registered trademarks of Apple, shouldn't this be indicated? Second, speaking of those trademarks, there's nothing in the article about the fight they had with the speaker company Macintosh (I hope I've got that spelling right, it's been a while) over the computer's name. Third, nothing is included about the infighting to keep the Apple ][ family going while trying to sell the Mac as well - I know it's in the History of Apple Computer article, but don't these things deserve slight mentions? On this point I disagree in part with Angr - I think you should touch on some things in brief, and THEN let readers get the in depth information. Yes it leads to some duplication, but I don't think this can/should be avoided. And what about Guy Kawasaki's official role as the "Mac Evangelist" (an idea copied way too late and far less successfully by Atari for their STs, TTs and Falcons in the early 90s). Or what about the "Apple Masters" program? One other thing, and I'm admittedly nitpicking here: the Power Macs also ship with a Mighty Mouse, and the Mini has no monitor, keyboard OR mouse. Plus you might add that the Power Mac towers don't come with monitors either... --JohnDBuell 00:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I know there is lots missing that you have mentioned such as the Apple II and Guy Kawasaki. Why should we mention they are trademarks? this is an encyclopedia, I know it led to a conflict with another company, but I don't think its very relevant because I *think* it was settled out of court. People reading the article already have enough information, an encyclopedia is not here to cover every single subject and bit of trivia about the Mac and Apple. — Wackymacs 08:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I thought your WikiProject goals stated otherwise. :P --JohnDBuell 13:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The goal is to (quote) " improve and standardize the quality of all Apple Macintosh related articles to featured article standard." Since length is a factor in an article—although not an important one, at least in this article—that means that we don't have to knitpick at the details. It has to be comprehensive, yes, but not so much as to include every nuance of the subject. This article is already unfairly receiving compaints about the legnth; a trivia section would just exasorbate that.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Funny, I read "The main goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has concise and detailed articles about every subject relating to the Apple Macintosh and Apple Computers." My objection stands. --JohnDBuell 22:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's true. And the article in question is relatively concise. Because it's long enough to provide useful information ("detailed", another word from above) but short enough to not ramble or go into too much extraneous info. There's nothing in that article that shouldn't be there. That's concise. There's everything in that article that should (pertains to the topic and belongs in an encyclopedia) be there. That's detailed. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The legnth is fine. We took the time to write that stuff, please, don't delete it. --HereToHelp (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I wasn't proposing any deletions, please re-read my original objection. --JohnDBuell 23:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Then why are some people angry about the legnth and you want it more in depth? The point is, if you want to add such a section do so yourself. But it is not needed. As Wackymacs and my above comment say, we are here to strike a balance between legnth and content. I think we've done a good job in that area. --HereToHelp (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "The main goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has concise and detailed articles about every subject relating to the Apple Macintosh and Apple Computers." This does not imply that the project means to cover every subject relating to the Apple Macinotsh and Apple Computers in one single article. The goals of the project are all encompassing. However, there are several hundred Apple Macintosh related articles that the project has to work with. Your objection based on a lack of trivial facts (facts that are included in other Apple-related articles) can not justified by restating the goals of Wikiproject Macintosh --t-bte288-c 02:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The only thing I found in a sub-article was my statement about the Macintosh division and the Apple ][ division fighting each other for marketing and sales dollars. I have found none of the other points addressed in any of the other 'sub-articles.' I hardly find Apple's ongoing history of trademark disputes trivial, although the one for Macintosh itself WAS settled, and has not resurfaced, unlike the Apple Computer vs. Apple Corps suits. I also don't think that the roles of the Mac Evangelist or the Apple Masters were trivial either - they did foster some outreach - Apple has had some user groups going on for well over twenty years because of these relationships. I'm still NOT budging from my vote. --JohnDBuell 02:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The reasons many of these facts (not trivia... I apologize for making that assertion) have not been addressed in sub-articles resides in the fact that WikiProject Macintosh is brand new. Apple Macintosh was the WikiProject's first focus, and therefore we have not polished any sub-articles yet. This is no reason to keep the article-at-hand from being a FA, instead it is the reason that WikiProject Macintosh exists. This gives us incentive to polish all the sub-articles, not to add to the length of the main article. --t-bte288-c 02:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, so why NOT fork off History of the Apple Macintosh, leave a summary on this page, move and develop the new page, reduce the SIZE of this page, as others have objected to, and everyone wins? --JohnDBuell 02:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Because people wan everything in one place. It's fine. Really.--HereToHelp (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Peer review comments were ignored and the same ones have been brought up here. Imagine that. It's still too long. Ignoring valid peer review is why that process doesn't get more involvment. - Taxman Talk 22:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Taxman, will you please specify exactly which PR comments you're referring to, and how, in your view, these might be addressed. Otherwise, your objection is not actionable. Tony 02:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't want to put words in someone else's mouth, but I would guess that Taxman is objecting to his comments in the second peer review not receiving any direct answer. I won't quote them here, since the link is at the top of this section. --JohnDBuell 02:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think he means the part about trimming it down that he posted there himself. I personaly redid that last paragraph of the history section.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I left detailed comments in the peer review on what the article needs thus it's very actionable. Tpny, please understand what actionable means before saying an objection is not actionable. The history section specifically is too long, and fixing that alone could solve the problem. It's 5 out of the 11 pages of text in the article. Is it worthy of 45% of the article? To support that the history would have to be the most important thing about the Macintosh. Is the history 2.5 times more important than the hardware itself? (That gets 2 pages). And I don't understand, HereToHelp, that paragraph still contains the exact same problem. It claims "Apple has seen a significant boost in sales of Macs, largely because of the success of the iPod." I believe that is far from established fact. The halo effect gets a lot of press and you can cite a lot of sources that discuss it, but many don't believe it is true. Much better would be to say something like X analyst, or Forbes magazine believes a large portion of the growth is..., or whatever the reliable sources would support (Apple's SEC filings might be good things to look at). Some prominent POV's would claim the improved sales of the Mac's are due to OSX being ahead of the comptetition. Point is, what is there is POV, and there's a lot more like that in the article. That one and the length of the history section are just the most egregious. - Taxman Talk 14:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I tweaked that paragraph again; care to have another look?--HereToHelp (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's better, but attributing the Halo effect idea would be better. You could even attribute it to Apple, because they state it in their annual report that they believe it. Also, the Mac unit sales is a qtr to qtr increase comparison. Probably better would be to use the year over year increase (which was still 38%). Choosing the qtr to qtr gain because it has the higher number is a bit POV. I will have to continue to object with the history section overemphasized as it is. There is nothing supporting it being the most important topic and worth 45% of the article. Balance is key to NPOV too. - Taxman Talk 16:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry that we can't accommodate you. Oh—I don't appreciate that edit summary. --HereToHelp (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the lack of clarity, I was moving fast. FU was short for Follow up, and we use it commonly for that at work. I can see now how it could be misinterpreted. Sorry. But I feel the length of the history section is an obvious problem. - Taxman Talk 12:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh...*laughs with hindsight*.--HereToHelp (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support despite the article's length. This is a topic that is impossible to narrow down any more. After editing by plenty of Wikipedians the article has been refined to the most important information. The peer reviews were heeded, but it would not be beneficial to shorten this article anymore. The additioin of a trivia section would undermine the encyclopedic nature of the article, and any more product specifics would simply add to the already contested length. After hard work by several people, this article receives my support. --t-bte288-c 22:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "This is a topic that is impossible to narrow down any more." Thank you! I agree entirely. We have to sarifice being concise for being comprehensive. Being over 32k does not instantly disqualify an article. We had all of Wikiproject Macintosh working on this; it's good enough for a FA.--HereToHelp (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm a machead myself, but this article seems someone incomplete. It's very good of course, but there are no references to either the Macintosh TV or the Power Mac G4 Cube, two of the most important (design wise, not sales wise) macintoshes created. I think a paragraph about "failed" designs would do the article well - Apple tries a lot of experimental, avant garde stuff that sets them apart, and the article should reflect this and the price for such. Also there are dubious image copyrights, the worst of which is Image:Steve_Jobs_with_iMac.jpg which has *no* rationale at all, despite being copyrighted and ultra high resolution to boot! - JustinWick 02:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Good point there - there was a 'coffeetable' book about Apple's designs a few years ago (with a cube prototype from the early 1980s!) that I'm still kicking myself for not buying at Borders.... --JohnDBuell 02:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I would suggest putting the table of current models further down below the timeline and before the hardware details, as this seems the more appropriate logical sequence of the page. David | Talk 15:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Very strong support per all other supporter's comments. (DISCLAIMER: I use a Mac PowerBook G4. :)) --Cjmarsicano 19:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support. It would be odd to shorten the article. I think other encyclopedias have much longer articles, and this article is very comprehensive and thus needs to have many sections. There aren't really any sections that are much too detailed in comparison to the other sections. Ronline ✉ 02:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • support. I don't think the length is a problem in this case. 43kb isn't all that long anyway, and it looks like a great article. Tuf-Kat 02:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the best articles on wikipedia in a long time. What a great read, good use of images aswell. Don't shorten it. Great stuff!---(Smerk)
  • Support. I also put a lot of work into this article (shortening it from 52k to a bit below its present length), and I can say with confidence that it's long, but not too long. Right now it's a good compromise between shortness and details.  grm_wnr Esc 11:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment... well, okay, nitpick. The image at the top is captioned as the "first" Macintosh, but if one looks closely at the dialogue box on screen it says it's Finder version 4.1 -- and "512K", which would indicate the second Macintosh release... ～J.K. 06:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This has been highlighted before, the website it is from states that it is a 128K Macintosh. — Wackymacs 08:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between "128k" and "first". I noticed that the menus were not in English (Spanish?); could it be that this was the first Mac released outside the US, or in that language, or some other early "first" that wasn't the 128k? If the site actualy says 128k and we can't find a better PD image, keep it. If it says "first"...well, we got problems.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Italian, if I'm any judge (Spanish doesn't have double z's), but as Wikipedians, we should be better aware than anyone that web sites are capable of being wrong. ;o) Seriously -- were there any design differences between the "original" 128k and other pre-Plus Macs, besides the amount of RAM? If not, we can keep the image and weasel out of the problem by saying this is the first Mac "case design" or something along those lines. ～J.K. (who's never used a Mac older than a Plus) 23:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Was the 512k Mac even put into any other languages? That aside, I think that a new image is preferable. Yes, all websites are fallible, but an unvandalized FA should be accurate.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. So, other than length and a few nitpicks, I thinkthat the article on the whole is ready for featured.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Something else I noticed that really IS lacking is any discussion of Apple's various attempts at making servers. There was an attempt in the 1980s to make a workgroup server after desktop publishing took off, but it never materialized (although it has been documented, and I think some prototypes were photographed). Then there were the servers that ran A/UX and AIX, which, like the later Power Macintosh G3 and G4 servers were really just "off the shelf" models with server software (A/UX, AIX, AppleShare, AppleShare IP, Mac OS X Server 1.x or 10.x) preloaded. I think some models had various build-to-order options as well. Then came XServe, which already has its own article. It MIGHT be worth a mention, but it's certainly fodder for a whole new article, if one isn't planned already. --JohnDBuell 18:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The information you mention is already included in sister articles about the Apple servers, including Xserve and the Workgroup servers. I don't see any reason to mention these as they are not really Macintoshes as such. Apple don't class them as being in the Macintosh family of products. A/UX itself is already mentioned in the Apple Macintosh article. Xserve also has its own mention (in the current line-up section and the lead). Adding more information to the article would extend its length even further, a very disputed fact that a lot of people don't like and have used as objections for this featured article candidate; we don't need to make the article longer. — Wackymacs 18:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I only said that it MIGHT be worth a mention - please don't put the proverbial words in my mouth. I found some of the information in the pertinent XServe article, but I'll be darned if I could find anything on the previous attempts, except in the A/UX article. I do think it really would behoove the project to eventually create a history sub-article, within which all of these projects could and probably should be included. --JohnDBuell 18:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Well suggestions like this and this type of discussion may be better suited for Talk:Apple Macintosh because its making this FAC page really long as it is. I'm not sure about a History sister article, because I think readers prefer it when all the information they need is in one concise article without the need of having to read several different pages. A history article for the Apple Macintosh article would also clash with History of Apple Computer. — Wackymacs 18:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object The article is fairly well-written and easy enough to read, and covers the general hardware and software evolution of the Mac in reasonable detail. However, it lacks critical balance, largely by failing to properly explain how the Mac has been marketed. The article recognizes the (albeit very one-sided) "Mac vs PC" two-platform PC market with frequent references to Windows throughout. However, a clear explanation of what the Mac is and how it is "different" from Windows, is not presented. We have instead more of a product-brochure level of coverage, with the addition of phrases like "the Mac has been criticized for" to create a sense of balance. I therefore have a problem with both comprehensiveness and POV. (The "common knowledge" framework I'm assuming is that "most" people reading Wikipedia use either a Windows or Mac machine, and have heard of both, but are not necessarily familiar with anything beyond the fact that they are "competing brands".) Specific problem areas:
  • The Macintosh is not adequately described - It is not made clear that the Mac is essentially a hardware-plus-operating system package deal (with a minor exception during the "clone" period)--a closed system, as it were, with Apple controlling everything--while Windows as an operating system that is run on any number of hardware packages by any nunber of manufacturers. This is not esoteric, it is fundamental to understanding many things about the Mac, including how it always has high-concept design (compared to the old Windows beige box), high-profile advertising campaigns--an overall massive brand push compared to "PC"s--and has been two to three times the cost of a comparable Win PC. This has been added to the lead.
The basic information is now there. However, the lead needs a good rewrite to make it a little more easy to read, clear and...compelling. For one, there is some confusion and redundancy between the first sentence of the article, and the third paragraph of the lead section, which together make up what should be one piece of information. Furthermore, having introduced this "unique" aspect of the Mac (hardware+software), the body of the article doesn't elaborate. Why this marketing approach? The Apple II wasn't closed in this way. So what happened to set Apple on the h/w+s/w course?
  • Apple's history of "leaving behind" of its customers through fundamental changes in OS and hardwre is not clearly noted A defining feature of the Mac's evolution is the periodic changes it has made to move the product forward that have essentially forced customers to buy new software and/or new machines. This is not necessarily good or bad, but it is notable (and not the case with Windows). The article fails to mention that when Mac moved to PowerPC, old software was not compatible with the new architecture, and s/w developers did not offer free upgrades, so users were forced to upgrade both hardware and s/w (often expensive DTP and image editing packages). The next two instances of are wrapped up in the article in one sentence: "Older Mac OS programs can still run under Mac OS X in a special virtual machine called Classic, but this will no longer be possible when Apple switches from the PowerPC architecture to Intel processors in 2007." In fact, the "virtual machine" mode was far from a transparent and effective solution (lots of problems were caused, new software was often required), so the upcoming switch to Intel will actually be the third time existing customers are forced to reinvest simply because of major platform change. To maintain NPOV, these two points should be clearly explained in context, as they are simple, technical facts (which had and will have significant practical impact on existing Mac users). This, along with all of the flaws of the Mac, are addressed in a new section.
This is not adequately covered in the new section, and in any case, the proper place would be in the appropriate areas of the hardware and software histories. To say, "They changed the computer architecture" (PowerPC) and not say "which made all of the old software obsolete" is IMO a big omission. --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The software situation is not clearly explained The desktop publishing and Software sections neither explain the basic situation that the first great DTP and graphic design software -- Pagemaker, QuarkXPress, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc -- came out first on Mac. With or without an explanation that this provided a first inroads into the graphic design and publishing world, this is important Mac history. Design houses, small publishers and the like made a commitment to Mac hardware that was triple the cost of comparable Win machines, because of the availability of key software that was later fully ported to Windows.
Still unaddressed; see comments further down... --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Effects on the technology industry" section is not clear and not sufficiently supported The impression I'm left with is that the Mac blazed trails. Did they R&D this products? Did they find ways to bring them to the market affordably before all others? Or did they simply provide existing options earlier, because they were selling higher priced machines?
The new paragraph certainly adds a new perspective. However, I'm not sure where it lies in the POV department, and should at least have citations. I think it addresses/fixes the point, but since this is FAC, I have to consider that it doesn't seem to meet FA other criteria, like verifiability and NPOV. --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The Mac vs PC controversy is not directly addressed This is an enduring feature of the Macs existence. A brief closing paragraph, beginning: "Some Macintosh owners may be said to belong to a so-called "cult of Mac", and indeed many self-identify as such. does not at all properly represent the major debate that has surround the choice of Mac over Windows, from DTP to the different desktop video options today. A brief summary of the traditional and ongoing arguments is necessary. It is now very clearly adressed in the new section.
What I'm referring to here is the ongoing Mac vs PC consumer-level debate. This is a distinct and noteworthy part of Macs history (more so, if comparisons need be made, than the single instance of that Superbowl add). I'm talking about everyone from regular home users to all types of professionals (typically, artists and video editors), engaged in the: "Which is easier/better/more reliable/etc" debate. This is a cultural phenomenon all its own (encouraged by Apple all along, as in their Switch campaign). It could be summarized in as little as one well-written paragraph. It should be. --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no Critics of the Mac section In many different types of Wikipedia article, there is a criticisms or issues section. Certainly, for the Mac, there is enough well-documented criticism of the overall marketing practices to merit the same. Generally, the idea that the Mac is a heavily-marketed, slickly packaged, over-priced computer that appeals to fear of technology in a certain segment of the market ("the Mac is easy to use, promotes freedom"), deserves at least the same paragraph or three devoted to "Advertising". See the new section.
Yes, some of this is now mentioned, but it is not well-integrated. The "Advertising" section is still out of place. It should be "Marketing and Advertsing" or something like that, and discuss Apple's overall approach, not just highlight an ad or two. There were a few main campaigns that should be mentioned. All of this could be accomplished in more or less the same space that Advertising takes up now. --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Extremely POV, pro-Mac, speculative, and poorly supported summary paragraph What is this about? Why is it suppored by things like "surely" and link to the definition of "conventional wisdom"? Because I see Macs in every other Hollywood movie, does that mean that directors and their set designers also "use Macs"? Market research indicates that Apple draws its customer base from an unusually artistic, creative, and well-educated population, which may explain the platform's visibility within certain youthful, avant-garde subcultures. [14] [15] Furthermore, conventional wisdom holds that the platform appeals especially to the politically liberal-minded; even Steve Jobs speculates that that “maybe a little less” than half of Apple's customers are Republicans, “maybe more Dell than ours.” [16] [17] This particular stereotype is reinforced, surely, by the company's pattern of political donations, by Al Gore’s membership on its board, and not least by Jobs’ personal history (most recently in his role as advisor to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry). [18] Nevertheless, well-known Mac users include the likes of conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, an outspoken Apple evangelist, and even George W. Bush.
This is still there. It's kind of interesting, but just because there are citations doesn't make it NPOV. It's really a reiteration of what seems to me like Mac's marketing objective, to maintain its small market share with loyal, affluent, new-product motivated segment. A more "objective" summary may be that: "Mac markets specifically to affluent people who want to avoid dealing with tech" or something like that. To imply that somehow Macs are "more suited" to artistic and creative people requires more than sales surveys and demographics of Mac owners. --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I suppose it's easy to read my points as Mac-bashing. That isn't at all the case. If I come to this article wondering, "So, what makes the Mac so different?" (as I imagine many readers would), I'd leave with no new understanding or insight, just some extra trivia about models and a sort of timeline sense of product development. A comprehensive article on the Mac has to be more than hardware and software specs. --Tsavage 01:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC) UPDATE: I'm sorry, I still haven't had time to fully reread the article, and probably won't be able to for another day or so. I did skim it, and the more complete description in the lead is good, however, at least some points were apparently not addressed (for example, making clear all of the killer desktop programs that appeared first on the Mac, like Freehand, QuarkXpress, Photoshop, etc). If this nom hangs out here for a couple more days, I will definitely do my bit and follow-up, otherwise, it's in the hands of the Arbiter of Consensus... Thanks! --Tsavage 00:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Jaw drops to the floor Well, I'm glad that you're so...concerned with our article. We'll try to implement these at once...but if you could help, we'd sure appreciate it. I'm not sure if I can galvanize WikiProject Macintosh before this article gets processed for FAC. I've been looking for something to do—really—and it looks like you just made my day. Breathes a deep breath and prepares for a very long night --HereToHelp (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm writing a section to adress the all the POV issues and kill about half a dozen stones in one throw. --HereToHelp (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm glad you're having fun! I unstruck the objections of mine that you crossed out, not because I don't think they've been addressed (I haven't even checked), but simply 'cause, I wrote 'em, I get to strike 'em... ;) Really, though, if anyone can cross out other people's objections, there's no way to keep track of what's going on... Later on... --Tsavage 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
What? I spent all of thirty seconds formatting the strikeouts...
I'm glad to see that someone's working on this with me. Have you considered joining WikiProject Macintosh? Oh—thanks for copyediting my userpage. --HereToHelp (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
We've got a problem with the footnote numbering. I can't quite pinpoint the problem, can someone take a look at it? --HereToHelp (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, that's done. Sheesh, this page is now 32k.--HereToHelp (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The changes seem to have broadly addressed at least some my concerns. I know time may be running out on this FAC (though they do tend to go on...), so I'll go over it all hopefully sometime today. Meanwhile, an enhanced suggestion (partially mentioned above): more complete coverage of the "killer apps" that first emerged around the Mac would greatly benefit this story. Pagemaker is mentioned in 1985 for DTP. However, Adobe Illustrator (1985?), for vector graphics, with typography applications, and bringing forward PostScript, is not mentioned. And, over the next 4-5 years, QuarkXPress (1987), Freehand (1988?), Sound Tools (1988) and Photoshop (1990) emerged. All were, initially, for Mac-only. These became defining "desktop" digital tools for DTP, digital photo editing and image manipulation, graphic design and audio editing, and in many cases remain so today. A succinct account of these events in one place would go a long way to establishing part of the reason for the buzz surrounding the Mac from its incepetion, and specifically in illustrating why many "creative" types had reason to embrace the Mac hardware--for the software--because it could do on the PC level what no other (Win) option could come near. At the time. --Tsavage 16:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm on it.--HereToHelp (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Done. So much for the WikiProject helping out...if there's anything else, just say so and I'll try to get to it.--HereToHelp (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey, sorry about not helping out with you much HereToHelp - I've been at school all day. I might be able to help out a bit more now that I'm on a school holiday for Christmas. The article looks even better now, but on the Talk page someone requested for a section about legal issues involving the Mac, see Talk:Apple Macintosh at the bottom. — Wackymacs 18:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't blaming you specifically, I was just saying that there are 18 members and only one of them is helping, but it's alright, I overreacted. As for the legal issues, I hink that shouldn't be too hard considering we now have a ready-made source.--HereToHelp (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
If anything else needs to be done, I'm available. Oh—don't indent the next section.--HereToHelp (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
So much for not indenting...but you'll find the section on the killer desktop publishing apps in the first paragraph of that section. if it still isn't clear enough (and it is clearer), you can clarify it further with a few easy edits.--HereToHelp (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I started to review, but it's hard to tell what's going on with all of the recent revisions. For example, the killer apps mention, which was there a couple dozen revisions ago (I had to check back in the history) is now gone. That's weird, and the excision leaves a reference that no longer makes sense ("All of these items were unique to the Macintosh..."). Therefore, I have to conclude that the article is not stable. --Tsavage 23:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you had to come to that conclusion. I'll read over the whole thing again and remove such statements. Plase continue to check back and hopefully change your vote.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
What I was explaining (as you'll see when you read it) is that someone has already removed the (your?) recent mention of Photoshop and the other killer aps (an in so doing, left a sentence that doesn't make sense). I don't see the point of reading through the whole thing again, if people are actively undoing changes made during this FAC process.
Yes, I saw that, but there were other changes that I fixed. As for DP, 216.165.224.71 keeps reverting me but I think we've reached a compromise. I don't blame you for citing stability, though.--HereToHelp (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to implement your suggestions on Desktop Publishing, but these anons keep reverting my changes! Take a look at the page history if you want to see their comments in the edit summaries (they seem to explain their logic reasonably well but I am more or less unfamiliar with desktop publishing). Instead of me being the middle man, I'd appreciate that you go settle this, or something along those lines.--HereToHelp (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's the anon comment you referred to: Actually by 1987 the leading dtp software for the mac was pagemaker, macpublisher II/III and ready set go. xpress didn't make its mark til later. PS wasn't released til 1990 (note heading is 85-89 Regarding that, there are two problems with the "fix" based on my objection. First, your entry, while indeed mentioning the programs, was simply an insertion into the existing text, which didn't really put things into context or explain anything new. Next, reasons the anon deletion don't make much sense. Your edit didn't say those were the leading programs at the time; in fact, during that early period, both h/w and s/w were just muscling up, and the early adopters were looking at everything that became available. From its launch, Quark was a strong page layout competitor (whether or not it was the "leading" one, which meant little in those early days), and soon enough emerged as the leader which I believe it is to today. Photoshop (1990 release) doesn't fit by date into that section (not a reason for deletion, simply a move), and that only underscores my point that there are problems with the article that can't be fixed by a few minor alterations. In this case, it should make clear the basic fact that the early Mac was the first platform for a whole range of new desktop applications, including DTP, graphic design and audio (musicans and the electronic music/production revolution is as much a part of the Mac story as DTP/graphics). Photoshop is typical of the omissions here: it is a household word these days, and was developed entirely in the Apple/Mac follwer zone that certain software developers of the day gravitated to (i.e. Photoshop was developed as a "Mac" application)--a Mac article that covers third-party software has to mention this. --Tsavage 20:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and put all those software programs back in, taking measures to compromise: Pagemaker was first, but the rest of these were important, too. Hopefuly that version will stay put... --HereToHelp (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Good work done to the article. Lots of information to readers. --Terence Ong |Talk 05:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Support-Good article covering the entire historyCuBiXcRaYfIsH 02:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
At last: someone who doesn't want the history section trimmed.--HereToHelp (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Apple_Macintosh_65c4.html"