Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/NeXT/archive2

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] NeXT

First FAC nomination - Peer review

2nd nomination. Resolves issues from the last FAC nomination. I believe this article meets the FA criteria. Well referenced, good prose, well written, concise and easy to read, includes images (with correct license/source information). Covers a wide range of information on the subject. Tidy ToC, not too many External Links. Conforms with Manual of Style and all references are formatted properly using Cite templates. — Wackymacs 15:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. New sections on corporate culture and impact on the computer industry add context. Tomhormby 15:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, already supported the article last time and I was quite suprised it failed. - Tutmosis 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "Ibids" are very much frowned upon, so I changed them in case someone shoves a reference in between 5 and 6.--Rmky87 20:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Source verification: [1]
    1. Apple Computer (7 February 1997). Apple Computer, Inc. Finalizes Acquisition of NeXT Software Inc.. Retrieved on 25 June 2006. → Goes to a webarchive search result and it is empty. Link to the original site is broken. Please replace this source.
    2. Paul Rand (HTML). logolog (2004). → A blog. Unreliable.
    3. Steve Jobs, NeXT employees. (1986). The Entrepreneurs Part 1 [TV]. → YouTube link. Its license cannot be verified.
    4. Steve Jobs, NeXT employees. (1986). The Entrepreneurs Part 2 [TV]. → YouTube link. Its license cannot be verified.
    5. frogdesign timeline: 1987 NeXT. frogdesign. → A commercial website; the link goes to the main page (spam?).
    6. NeXT history (French). → Very uninformative citation.
    7. PC Magazine, 11 September 1990, Volume 9, Number 15. → Title? Author?
    8. SERIAL ARCHIVE LISTINGS for NeXTWORLD. The Online Books Page. → What is the online books page? Who is the publisher?
    9. NeXTWorld Magazines. ChannelU. → Which volume? The link goes to an image gallery of the magazine covers.
    10. NeXTWORLD Expo 1992. NugUK (1992). → The title is Rumours?? And it is a personal webpage.
    11. NeXTWORLD EXPO. NeXTWORLD Extra magazine (1993). → Link to cheap airline tickets, hotel, free insurance, games, etc.??
    12. [January 1997] “Crossing the Bar”, NeXTSTEP Technical Review (HTML). → A personal website. Can't find out who (s)he is. Please find more official source.
    13. Business Week, December 20, 1993. → What is this? Which article?
    14. Apple Computer (20 December 1996). Apple Computer, Inc. Agrees to Acquire NeXT Software Inc.. Retrieved on 25 June 2006. → Goes to a webarchive search result and it is empty. Link to the original site is broken. Please replace this source.
    15. Sample Business Contracts - Apple Computer, Inc and NeXT Software, Inc. onecle (1996). → Unauthorized website. Can't find what the website is all about, only lists of contract samples.
Overall, I oppose this article for FA for the moment. Please standardize all citations (see WP:CITET). All web article with authors should be given its author name. Make sure all information are correct: title, publisher name, url, etc. Online sources should be supplied with the last time it was accessed. — Indon (reply) — 00:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the references are cited as best I could. Most of the articles do not cite their author, and some do not even have a title -- I don't have 100% access to the articles cited. Take a look at the webpages yourself. The web archive search isn't empty if you click on the correct date. The sample business contracts show the agreement between NeXT and Apple for their buyout. As for the NeXT magazines, look at the statement. Why should one volume be referenced? The article isn't talking about one volume. The YouTube links are external, nothing to do with Wikipedia - why should a license matter? The videos are not hosted by Wikipedia. All of the references already use cite templates. None of these concerns came up in the last FAC. — Wackymacs 07:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Some of the references you mentioned have been fixed by User:Tomhormby. — Wackymacs 07:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't looked again to the references, but going to comments your statements above one by one:
  • If you don't have 100% access to the articles cited, then how would readers see the source?
I was talking about the print sources, as I don't have the newspapers/magazines myself (those were cited online at an articles website). — Wackymacs 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have taken a look at the webpages myself, thank you. That's why I listed them above. The web archive searh is empty. It lists dates. Should readers find themselves which date of the source? Please take a look again at WP:RS (and its examples). Giving an internet search result is not a convenient link.
See here (web archive, works - users can choose any date they want from the periods the article was actively online - that's how archive.org works).
  • The sample bussiness contract is used as a sample for a class course. Can you guarantee that it is the legitimate contract?
Looks like the real thing to me. There are several other real contracts on that same site. — Wackymacs 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A citation should link to the source of the factual data/statement. If you want to tell something about NeXT magazine in general, use wikilink. If there isn't WP article about that, then create a stub. Read again on when to cite sources in WP:CITE.
  • The YouTube links. If you don't know the copyright of those videos, then don't link them. Per WP:C,
If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry).
That's my comments on your response above. I'm going to look again to the sources later. — Indon (reply) — 08:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed all of the questionable refs and replaced many of them with refs to contemporary periodicals. I don't know if that's OK, though. I still need to add the access dates, but if I understand you correctly, that's the last thing you're looking for? For the record, I believe people can read Infotrac abstracts. Tomhormby 19:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's have a look to the article again, as of [2]. And to Tomhormby, no, my reviews above are not the last thing I'm looking for. I haven't checked WP:MOS, the prose (perhaps somebody else will do), and other things. (Note: please do not mix your responses with my reviews below. Add your responses after my signature with proper indentation. Use item number to address my specific review below. Statements with darkred colors are taken from the article. Thanks)
  1. Since NeXT website is already closed, then do not add the ext. link to that website in the infobox, although through the webarchive, because it is out-of-date.
  2. I'm questioning the accuracy of these statements: Despite NeXT's lack of commercial success, it had a large impact on the computer industry. Object oriented programming and user interfaces became more common after the release of the NeXTcube and NeXTSTEP in 1988. It is unreferenced and there is no proof that OOP and UI are now used largely because of NeXT. This is a false statement, thus WP:OR.
  3. WebObjects never became very popular because of its initial high price of $50,000, but it also had an impact disproportionate to its popularity. → WP:PEACOCK and unreferenced.
  4. What is the relation between these staments: Jobs had been stymied by Apple's corporate structure and was determined to avoid the bureaucratic infighting that had led to his resignation. The changes ranged from a health insurance plan that offered benefits to not only married couples, but unmarried couples and same-sex couples to a completely new corporate nomenclature. with NeXT? Drop it, please. It is very unencylopaedic statements. Not for this article.
  5. At Apple, secretaries were area associates, but Jobs took it a step further and abandoned conventional corporate structures,[35] instead making NeXT a community with members instead of employees. → read the bold part. It does not make sense with the rest of the statement.
  6. PC Magazine, 11 September 1990, Volume 9, Number 15. → title? author? (*sigh*).
  7. "Businessland Deal Seen for Next Inc.", REUTERS, March 25, 1989. → The link goes to New York Times, not Reuters. NYT used Reuters source, but you read it from NYT.
  8. Re. sources with ext. links to Infotrac website. No, I can't read it. It needs a special access. Why do you use that link? Why can't you use PCWeek or InfoWorld websites directly? If there is no online version, then don't create a link to a paid 3rd party website.
  9. Duplicate items in the Further Reading section with References section. Don't put sources that are already used for reference in further reading.
  10. Apple Computer (20 December 1996). Apple Computer, Inc. Agrees to Acquire NeXT Software Inc.. Retrieved on 4 January 2007. → 404 Not Found to the link of the specific webarchive search result. (*sigh*)
  11. Per WP:EL, minimize only to necessary ext. links. I see the external links to the questionable sample contracts website for a class course, among others.
Conclusion, I'm still opposing. — Indon (reply) — 17:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Undercited, there's over 40 footnotes? All statements are referenced throughout the article. — Wackymacs 07:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain what is wrong with the lead. It is cited and concisely summarizes the article efficiently (it isn't too long or too short). — Wackymacs 07:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Back for a second look.

  • All websources need last access date. For example, this one: The NeXT years: Steve Jobs before his triumphant return to Apple (HTML). Low End Mac (2006). and What System Comes NeXT? (HTML). TidBITS (1996).
  • All footnotes need full biblio info - as an example, this one has an author and a full publication which aren't given: What System Comes NeXT? (HTML). TidBITS (1996), and this one also has an author and full publication date, which isn't provided: The NeXT years: Steve Jobs before his triumphant return to Apple (HTML). Low End Mac (2006).
  • The above are only samples - please check them all, and use a consistent style (for example, dates are not consistently formatted).
  • When citing different pages of the same book, please use the format used for Rose - for example, the repeat refs to Young should be handled the way Rose is, and all book refs should be listed as References.
  • Young is listed as further reading, when it should be listed as a Reference - pls check all of them.
  • Are all of these really cited to page 80? a b c d e f g h Stross, Randall (1993). Steve Jobs and the NeXT Big Thing. Athenium, 80. ISBN 0-689-12135-0.
  • Are all of these really cited to page 56? a b c d e f g h i j Stross, Randall (1993). Steve Jobs and the NeXT Big Thing. Athenium, 56. ISBN 0-689-12135-0.
  • There are large amounts of uncited text - examples only:
    • Almost the entire section, "Impact on the computer industry"
    • On every desk, there was a prototype NeXTCube and a $450 phone that was integrated with all of the sales offices and foreign subsidiaries. Jobs even had a T1 line installed at his home so he could work from there.
    • At the insistence of existing Mac developers, Apple included an updated version of the original Macintosh toolbox that allowed existing Mac applications integrated access to the environment without the constraints of Blue Box; this was named Carbon.
  • It is very frustrating to look at an article when the referencing is not in order - pls attend to this first.
  • Samples of unencyclopedic prose: The first floor was decked out with hardwood flooring and huge worktables where the workstations would be assembled.
  • Samples of prose problems - sentence fragment: US$75,000 for team members who had joined before 1986 and $50,000 for those who joined afterward.

You'll notice that my examples come from the bottom of the article, as I assume others look first at the top - they are examples only, please don't just fix those - the entire article needs serious attention to referencing and prose. Per WP:LEAD, you should have several paragraphs summarizing the article and giving a stand-alone overview of the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. 1a. Here are random examples that indicate fresh eyes are needed for a thorough copy-edit throughout.
    • What is "Early founding" (title)? How many times can you found? Do not use title case for headings.
    • Go through and weed out this "start", "began to" thing. "was forced to start curbing Jobs' power". I've seen this in other Mac-related articles. Who's writing this expression? There are FIVE in the paragraph I've chosen to inspect.
    • "Gassee"—Period missing.
    • "Eventually" is not an encyclopedic word. Give our readers the year.
    • "Macintoshes" three times in a sentence. Not the prettiest construction.
    • "a Nobel Laureate, who Jobs met"—Should be "whom", but just make it "a Nobel Laureate Jobs met".
    • "Unfortunately", "hugely"—lose the POV and the puffery.

Oh, it's not worth reading more. This is way below standard. Tony 00:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose per above; sorry, but this isn't up to standard yet. Trebor 13:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.