Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apple Macintosh/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Apple Macintosh

This is great article that has been through the Article Improvement Drive. Over the past few weeks there has been tons of copyediting and revision of the entire article, and we all feel that it is well deserving of Featured Article Standard. TDS ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Article is, unsurprisingly considering the subject, overlong. The history section in particular needs to be spun off into a separate article and condensed for the purposes of this one. The narrative of its development is extremely clunky and disjointed, seeming to introduce Jef Raskin three separate times, then later bringing up Hartmut Esslinger and the Snow White design language as a "key move" without any indication of why this was important. And, despite the section's overall length, the article manages to devote all of one sentence to Jobs vs. Raskin and the whole "Father of the Mac" issue.

Other problematic writing is scattered throughout. "In 1990 the Mac had gained widespread acceptance, but it was generally seen as too expensive" - huh? "In 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 Macintosh sales have been increasing continuously" - okay, did we need each of those years listed individually? Is the article trying to tell us that sales increased "continuously" not just year-over-year, but month-by-month as well, or is it just the hagiographic tendencies of Apple enthusiasts getting the better of them? (See also the skating over of internal company politics.) --Michael Snow 23:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I went through the article and copyedited almost 10k out, along with a major cleanup of the history section. I think 32k is basically unreachable for an article of this caliber, and many of our FAs are indeed longer. What do you think? -- grm_wnr Esc 00:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly an improvement, and I'm not insisting on 32k, but the 51k it was at was excessive. Another section that I would suggest needs condensing is the advertising section. For that matter, upon reviewing the source of the illustration for that section, I am considerably skeptical about the accuracy of the information in the first two paragraphs. It's difficult to be sure how many Newsweek ads ran, since it appears to talk about the same ad twice but with different details, and the page lengths stated do not match what appears in the source.

The writing in this section is as atrocious as some of what got cleaned up in the history section, which doesn't help the situation. I have the impression that this was filled in by somebody writing whatever came off the top of their head, without bothering to be careful about checking what they thought they knew. Obviously, that doesn't cut it for a featured article. --Michael Snow 23:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:IMac G5.jpg has no source information.
  2. The images Image:Emac.jpg, Image:XServe G5 Ext.gif are claimed as "fair use". It's quite possible for someone to make a free replacement for them, so there's no reason to use a fair-use image here.
  3. The images Image:Apple Macintosh Desktop.png, Image:MacOSX10.4.png, Image:MacIntroBrochurePage1.jpg, Image:Apple Special Event Photobooth.jpg are tagged as "fair use", but have no fair-use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what's needed.

  --Carnildo 00:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Image:Apple Macintosh Desktop.png, Image:MacOSX10.4.png, Image:MacIntroBrochurePage1.jpg - fair use rationale added.
  • Image:IMac G5.jpg, Image:Emac.jpg, Image:XServe G5 Ext.gif - removed from article, searching for free replacements. Free images in the table commented out until free images for all products can be found.
  • Image:Apple Special Event Photobooth.jpg - removed as not really necessary to illustrate the paragraph in question.
  • -- grm_wnr Esc 00:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks good. Support. --Carnildo 01:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As per above. 64.231.177.76 00:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• object one line sections shouldnt exist (Apple_Macintosh#Models) use wikipedia:summary style or remove the section and move the link to a list. --Jiang 05:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Line moved to "See also" section. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support However the article could be a bit shorter and the last few sentences of the market share section need citations. Cedars 00:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object I have done a lot of work on this article but I must object for now, because there are still a few problems in the English, it does not have an excellent flow. It is also very long, exceeding the 32KB suggested limit. — Wackymacs 08:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

See above. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Support Nice work, looks lots better now. I must agree, it is hard to reach 32KB limit, there is just so much information to mention on this topic. — Wackymacs 01:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good to me, though the objections above need fixing. Ambi 23:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Mild object.
  1. Make the captions more informative.
  2. Try to cut down on the size without destroying any data. Provide a bunch "main article:" and "see also:" links.
  3. Pictures of other macs? make sure you have the links
  4. All other complaints.

Get that done and go for it. HereToHelp|talk 23:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. A very well-done article. But a lot of terms many people won't know (graphical user interface, Steve Jobs, Lisa, etc.) are not defined. They are wikilinked, but it's my opinion that users should not have to follow a bunch of wikilinks to understand an article. -- Mwalcoff 01:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Well done, but no. Not until this huge rendering difference issue with firefox is resolved. B1oody8romance7 05:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Huh? Looks fine to me in Firefox on a Mac, and should look OK in Firefox on Linux/Windows as well. — Wackymacs 18:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What skin are you using? There's a big difference in how Classic and Monobook display certain types of image layout. --Carnildo 00:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)