Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/NeXT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:07, 17 May 2008.

[edit] NeXT

previous FAC | 2nd FAC | 1st FAC

I worked on this article a lot quite some time ago. It has been nominated for Featured Article status three times, but has failed all three. As the article is now, I believe it definitely meets all the FA criteria. — Wackymacs (talk)

  • Support agree with above. Although one or two more citations in the lead would be helpful. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 04:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Items addressed. Karanacs (talk)

Support. Karanacs (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support Comment: the "corporate culture" section should have some representation in the lead (aside from being interesting, use of a level one header implies this information is one of the “most important points”, which would make its inclusion necessary per WP:LEAD) and the flags should be removed per Wikipedia:MOSFLAG#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Why are references listed under "Further reading"? Shouldn't that section feature works that were not used as sources in the article (hence the name "Further reading")? BuddingJournalist 01:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, much improved. Hopefully you address Awadewit's concerns below. --Laser brain (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Comments: Still some outstanding minor issues below. --Laser brain (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose, 1a, organizational problems, and other issues. This article definitely would have benefited from a peer review before coming here again.
Issues resolved. --Laser brain (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now I agree with Laser brain. The article needs some serious copy editing. If a good copy editor sat down with the article for a day, they could improve it markedly. There are areas that need some explanation for the lay reader and wordy sections. There are also some grammatical errors and paragraph arrangements that could be improved. Awadewit (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have been alerted that the copyediting pass by Gusworld is complete, but I see a long list of questions on the article's talk page created by Gusworld as s/he was copyediting that has not yet been fully dealt with. It looks like an excellent list of points. When that list has been fully dealt with, I will look at the article again. Awadewit (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please note that those are merely suggestions for improvement, and are not intended as ways of meeting the FA criteria - which is what matters here. — Wackymacs (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • They are suggestions for how to improve the writing and questions about missing content. If you do not feel that they need to be addressed, it is a good idea to explain why not on the talk page so that other editors like myself can understand your rationale. Awadewit (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I see those as suggestions on what to add, in terms of context. Gusworld has already improved the writing (that is the whole point of a copy-edit). — Wackymacs (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll reread the article now, but as a copyeditor myself who creates the exact same kinds of lists as Gusworld, I wonder if they appreciate having their comments ignored without explanation or having their comments struck out (this is against talk page guidelines). Thinking about an article in such depth requires a lot of time. It is a courtesy to copy editors to respond to their comments. Awadewit (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • After rereading the article, I am still opposing. The prose of the article still needs to be improved. I have drawn all of my examples from the first section of the article, but these are pervasive problems throughout the article.
  • There are several one-sentence paragraphs that should be incorporated into other paragraphs or expanded into full paragraphs. Ex:
  • In 1984, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs was the head of Apple's SuperMicro division, which was responsible for the development of the Macintosh and Lisa personal computers.
  • Several times in the article, ideas and things are not fully explained to the reader. Ex:
  • As chairman, Jobs visited university departments and faculty members to sell Macintoshes. Jobs met Paul Berg, a Nobel Laureate, at a luncheon held in Silicon Valley to honor François Mitterrand - Silicon Valley should be linked; Berg should identified as a Nobel Laureate in Chemistry; Mitterand should be identified as the President of France
  • The first major outside investment was from Ross Perot, who originally saw NeXT employees and Jobs featured on the television show The Entrepreneurs. - Identifying Ross Perot in a phrase would help the reader
  • The article does not explain its jargon very well. Ex:
  • "Berg suggested to Jobs that he use his influence at Apple to create a 3M workstation, featuring more than one megabyte of RAM (hence the name), a megapixel display and megaflop performance." - "megapixel" is not linked or explained nor is "megaflop" (a word I grossly misinterpreted until I asked my geeky roommate about it)
  • There are still basic errors of grammar in the article. Ex:
  • "Apple CEO John Sculley ousted Jobs his day-to-day role at Apple, replacing him with Jean-Louis Gassée in 1985"
  • There are areas of vagueness: Ex:
  • "The board of directors sided with Sculley, while Jobs toured Europe and the Soviet Union on behalf of Apple." - What was Jobs doing?

I hope that these suggestions help. Try to look for the same problems throughout the article. Awadewit (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Alright, I have fixed the above issues you mentioned. I am going to go through the rest of the article ASAP. — Wackymacs (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I apologize, but I do not have time to read this article again right now. A family issue has very suddenly arisen that requires my attention. I may be able to read it again in about a week. I'm very sorry. Awadewit (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have returned and reread the article. Awadewit (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am still opposing on prose (now everyone knows how my students feel!). I have reread the article again and I still think that the problems I outlined above remain. The two most serious issues are the explanation of jargon and organization. Let me try to describe these issues in more detail.

  • The article does not explain its jargon very well.
  • Example: Berg suggested to Jobs that he use his influence at Apple to create a 3M workstation for higher education, featuring more than one megabyte of random access memory (RAM) (hence the name), a megapixel display and megaflop performance. A megaflop denotes the computer performance in flops (FLoating point Operations Per Second), which are used to measure computer performance. - A technical explanation has now been added (thank you!), but it is not seamlessly integrated into the prose and an explanation for why these components were brought together is not in the article. Why would these particular components have made the 3M ideal for the wetlab environment, for example? I feel like some pieces of the explanation are missing. Throughout the article, I just could not get a handle on the underlying reasons for many of the details offered. This is one of the hardest parts of writing about any technical subject. All of the connections seem obvious to the writers because they know them, but someone like myself who has only a passing familiarity with computers can't see all of those connections. They need to be explained to me. :) I need to learn.
  • There is less information now, unfortunately. As I have tried to explain, when I read the article much does not make sense to me. I have listed problem areas below. Awadewit (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Organizational issues.
  • General comment: At times the article adheres too rigorously to its chronological structure which makes it difficult for the reader to understand the topics being presented. This has also resulted in short, stubby paragraphs.
  • Laser brain was the one who suggested sticking to a chronological structure, and now you want me to do something completely different. I think it's extremely readable as it is, especially now that it has been reorganized a bit again. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting something completely different. I'm saying that at times the chronological structure gets in the way of understanding the topic. I'm not asking you to restructure the entire article - I'm asking you to rethink paragraph and sentence order, for example. Awadewit (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Example: In the first two paragraphs of "First generation", the specifications of the computer are not grouped together. For example, the CPU sentence comes well after the first description of the specs and next to the description of the case (it is my understanding that the CPU and the case have nothing really to do with each other). Then, there is a discussion of factory production followed by a return to a discussion of specs. To me, this doesn't make much sense. Details of sales are also split between the beginning and the end of the section. I think it would make more sense to describe the Next Computer and then its production, grouping together similar ideas into topical paragraphs: description. production, sales, etc.
  • Example: The "Next Software" section discusses two major topics: porting of software and the changes in Next's business model. However these two topics are spread out confusingly between several paragraphs. Again, I would explain everything about the porting in one or two paragraphs and everything about the changes in the business model in another set of paragraphs. It is hard for the reader to really figure out what is going on here, especially a reader like myself who is not all that familiar with computers.
  • Example: "Corporate culture and community" - Here again there needs to be some paragraph reorganization. For example, there should be an architecture and building paragraph. The information on these topics is too diffuse.
  • All of these have been reorganized now. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • These are better. Awadewit (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to see an expansion of the "Impact on the computer industry" section. To someone who is not familiar with the details here, I am still struggling to understand what Next contributed. This section in particular needs to be explained in plain terms to the lay person, I think.
  • This is still unclear to me. Awadewit (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • To be honest, I am unsure of what to add here... — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The prose is also a little wordy and choppy at times, but these problems are much easier to fix than the above. I feel that if the above problems could be solved, one sweep by a good copy editor would resolve any other minor issues.
    • It has been copy-edited 3 times already. List the exact problems, with justification of why it means this article doesn't meet FA criteria 1a for engaging prose. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Two examples where the sentences don't flow into each other yet:
        • 1) NeXT changed its business plan in mid-1986. The company decided to develop an object-oriented programming environment, hardware, and a Unix-like Mach-based operating system instead of just a low-end workstation. A team led by Avie Tevanian, who had joined the company after working as one of the Mach engineers at Carnegie Mellon University, was to develop the operating system. The hardware division, led by Rich Page, one of the cofounders who had previously led the Apple Lisa team, designed and developed the hardware. NeXT's first factory was completed in Fremont, California in 1987.[7] It was capable of producing 150,000 machines per year.[7] NeXT's first workstation was officially named the NeXT Computer, although it was widely referred to as "the cube"[19] because of its distinctive case designed by frogdesign.[20]
        • 2)Jobs found office space in Palo Alto on Deer Creek Road,[53] occupying a glass and concrete building, which featured a staircase designed by I. M. Pei, a Chinese American architect.[53] The first floor used hardwood flooring and large worktables where the workstations would be assembled. To avoid inventory errors, NeXT used the just in time (JIT) inventory strategy.[53] The company contracted out for all major components, such as mainboards and cases, and have the finished components shipped to the first floor for assembly. The second floor was the office space, which had an open floor plan. The only enclosed rooms were Jobs' office and a few conference rooms.[53] As NeXT expanded, it required new office space. The company rented an office in the San Francisco Bay in Redwood City.[51] The new office was designed by I. M. Pei. It was dominated by a floating staircase with no visible supports. The open floor plan was retained, although it was now very luxurious, including $10,000 sofas and Ansel Adams prints.[51]
          • This is a minor issue, though, like I said. I am fully willing to copy edit the article myself, after the jargon issue has been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Please copy-edit as soon as possible. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jargon:

  • The company decided to develop an object-oriented programming environment, hardware, and a Unix-like Mach-based operating system instead of just a low-end workstation. - What does this mean? I don't know.
  • Eventually, Canon released a NeXTstation which used the Intel GX processor. - Why?
  • The magneto-optical drive was replaced with a 2.88 MB floppy drive. - Why?
  • However, 2.88 MB floppies were expensive and did not succeed the 1.44 MB floppy. Realizing this, NeXT utilized the CD-ROM drive. - This is a little confusing - it is separated from the previous sentence. Did not succeed in the computer industry at large? Just in Next computers? Why did Next choose to use the CD-ROM? Were there other choices available?
  • NeXT's long-term aim was to migrate to a RISC architecture. - What is RISC? Why would they want to migrate to that?
  • NeXT started porting the NeXTSTEP operating system to PC compatible computers using the Intel 486 processor in 1992. - Could we link or explain "porting"? I had to look it up.
    • I have linked 'porting'. It is sort of hard to explain in one sentence, unless you want lots more jargon... — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Why was Next ported to the platforms it was? Were they the poplar ones at the time? Was Next contracted to do so?
  • Apple favored this option over others, which included continuing development of the Copland operating system, and purchasing BeOS - Could "BeOS" be explained in a parenthetical?
    • Added "operating system" after its name. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Object-oriented programming and user interfaces became more common after the release of the NeXTcube and NeXTSTEP in 1988. - Was this caused by Next, though? The sentence after this seems to indicate a causation but this one does not.

Here is an example of a good explanation:

  • The magneto-optical drive manufactured by Canon was used as the primary mass storage device. These drives were relatively new to the market, and the NeXT was the first computer to use them.[25] They were cheaper than hard drives but slower (with an average seek time of 96 ms). The design made it impossible to move files between computers without a network, since each NeXT Computer had only one MO drive and the disk could not be removed without shutting down the system. - It explains what a magneto-optical drive is (I didn't know) and why they were used. Awadewit (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions help. On a practical note, sometimes it helps to make a little outline of what you want each section to cover. The outline can help you organize the information because you can see the larger topics more easily. Awadewit (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment This is to both Laser brain and Awadewit: Gusworld is copy-editing it at the moment, and he will incorporate his changes very soon. (Hopefully it will fix all outstanding issues).— Wackymacs (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments Concerned about the prose.
    • "featuring more than one megabyte of RAM (hence the name)" What name?
      • 3 Ms-> 3M (Megabyte, Megaflop, Megapixel). — Wackymacs (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "A megaflop denotes the smallest scale computer performance in flops" How is this the smallest? One flop < One megaflop.
    • "a tentative specification was drawn up" For the workstation?
    • "including the precise angle used (28°) " Huh?
      • Meaning the angle the cube was tilted at for the logo. Since this paragraph is discussing the logo, I thought this is was obvious? — Wackymacs (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Perot originally saw NeXT employees and Jobs featured on the television show The Entrepreneurs." "Originally"? BuddingJournalist 18:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Changed to "first" instead of "originally". — Wackymacs (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


Comments
  • I think the lead needs some work...it doesn't seem to mention the impact, despite there being a section on that.
  • I agree that the lead needs some work. I would further suggest reorganizing the paragraphs - one for the chronological history of the company, which removes some of the excess details (e.g. how much money the company sold for), and one for a description of what the company did. The current arrangement is a little confusing. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Short paragraphs like "In total, 50,000 NeXT machines were sold" stand out as needing attention

The prose is generally good overall, just these minor things. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The lead has been improved, and the short paragraphs merged into longer ones. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Support - All seems OK now... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O)

I have made numerous little edits, mostly to the intro and history. I've removed any "expose" that was better left in articles on that topic (FLOPS for instance). It's nice to see how this article has evolved, I wrote the initial version some time ago, and I see broad strokes of it in there even though practically every single word has changed! Maury (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment (minor) The intro says that WO was not very successful, but the body says it was very successful. Both of these statements could be considered true, but they are confusing. I would suggest removing the "successful" in the intro entirely, and slightly expanding the section below to note that it was initially successful but was later crowded out. Maury (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Citation formatting resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Comment nextstep is sometimes written NeXTSTEP, but other times NEXTSTEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.55.16 (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.