- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 04:25, 5 July 2010 [1].
Macintosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Notified: Listed WikiProjects, top contributor User:HereToHelp
My main problems are 1a and 1c. It was kept at a FAR in 2008 but since then, it has only gotten worse. The last diff after the 2008 FAR shows most of the same problems, mostly in the use of proseline and poor-quality sources, so I think that it deserves a FAR.
- 1a concerns
- "However, Jobs’ leadership at the Macintosh project didn't last; after an internal power struggle with new CEO John Sculley, Jobs angrily resigned from Apple in 1985, went on to found NeXT, another computer company, and did not return until 1997." -- Not sourced, "angrily" indicates bias.
- Lots of one- and two-sentence paragraphs scattered about, most notably in the "1990 to 1998: Growth and decline" section.
- Eliminated all occurrences in the aforementioned section. Will do for the rest of the article in the coming days. Airplaneman ✈ 00:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "1990 to 1998: Growth and decline" is also poorly written proseline, with nearly every sentence beginning with "In [year]..."
- Some flowery prose such as "now-famous 1984 commercial" under Advertising.
- Dealt with. Will shoot down (have done a few times already) other occurrences in the article as well. Airplaneman ✈ 00:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1c concerns pertaining to references
Reference numbers are as of this revision:
- Footnote #1 is a bare URL.
- This, from footnote #7, is tagged as a likely unreliable source. The same site is used in footnotes #6 and #8.
- The authors are members of the original Macintosh team (i.e. primary sources). Folklore.org is merely the host (now probably never updated.) HereToHelp (talk to me) 16:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this, currently footnote #9, reliable?
- It was written by "a graduate student at the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology at the University of Toronto". Does that count? HereToHelp (talk to me) 16:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should that be considered a high-quality source? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnote #11 is malformatted.
- Footnote #12 doesn't credit the work or author.
- ForSomeReason,Footnotes#12and#13BunchEverythingUpIntoOneWord.
- Footnote #15 is a YouTube link to a definite copyright violation.
- Ditto Footnote #16, a GoogleVideo link.
- What makes this, footnote #17, reliable? (Also used at #42 and #47.)
- Looks like #17 ( currently #24 ) is referenced. We can probably go back to the ultimate sources if necessary. And the source that it uses for the MultiPlan assertion is ultimately from BYTE, June 1984, Volume 9, Number 6. The bit about Word is sourced to The Making of Microsoft, by Daniel Ichbiah and Susan Knepper, 1991 and Creative Computing, July 1985, Volume 11, Number 7. Looks like the other sources using this also can similarly be traced back. PaleAqua (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or this, footnote #18?
- Or this, used at #22 and #23?
- Or this, an obvious sales site at #26 and #30?
- Replaced #26. Looking for a suitable #30 replacement. Airplaneman ✈ 23:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The numbering changed, but I think I replaced] that one with a link to Apple's own knowledge base. The problem is that it doesn't explicitly say it was the first to use a color screen. So The Reliable Source does not provide enough info, and the less reliable sources do. Two weeks ago, I asked which would be preferable and got no response. The lack of input from the nominator has been most unhelpful, and so I think it is unfair that we progress to FARC without having time to fix these problems, because we do not know what solution is preferred. HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or this, used at #48 and #49?
- This IS A FREAKING FORUM. Removed.
- Two more URLs were commented out in the text of the article. I removed them outright, since both appeared unreliable and/or were dead.
- 1c concerns pertaining to unsourced information
- Paragraphs 1 and 3 under "1985 to 1989: Desktop publishing era" are entirely unsourced, and the second paragraph of the same has only one source.
- First paragraph of "Hardware" and "software" sections are unsourced.
- Lots of [citation needed]s in the Software header and a few elsewhere.
Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of the problem is maintaining order when there aren't many involved editors to watch anonymous additions, who probably inserted most of the malformatted references. Another issue is (for a computer topic) there aren't a lot of sources for the history, because paper sources are out of print and the Internet did not exist yet. The islandnet site (17, 42 47) lists thousands of references to periodicals. I think it's pretty reliable. I can try to switch other references over to Apple's knowledge base, or to Mactracker, which was endorsed (subjectively) by MacWorld, a print publication that is cited (apparently without issue) in the article. I'll make some preliminary improvements today and see where we wind up as I go along. HereToHelp (talk to me) 15:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if you were implying this or not, but the sources do not have to be online. Print sources are acceptable (and in many cases better). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that. However, I do not have access to print sources. I have found that summary sites that reference print sources (example) are very useful. HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got access to print archives and ILL, so I'll be able to get access to materials, but that means finding stuff first :P Apple Confidential looks like a good book on early Apple/Mac history, as does Fire in the Valley: The Making of The Personal Computer, and Insanely Great: The Life and Times of Macintosh, the Computer That Changed Everything. Problem is even if I get these books, I'll be unable to do much with them (semester is soon to be over), so they're not really accessible for the purposes of FAR/C.
- Another issue I have with the article is its overarching structure; it's designed to be incredibly difficult to keep up-to-date. Writing from a more historical perspective would help with some issues. The article really needs to be stripped and gutted in places and entirely rewritten, which just isn't going to happen in the context of an FAR. On a more addressable note, there's a hell of a lot of non-free images of operating systems, which is really secondary to the hardware subject, and could be removed (as it stands they don't have very good rationales.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured article criterion of concern is sourcing and prose YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if you're implying we move from FAR to FARC or not, but I don't think this has had a fair FAR. Even though it has run for two weeks, I have gotten no feedback from the nominator, which will help me improve the article (and real life has now given me more time to dedicate to that task.) I think with a little collaborative editing, we can remove (or at least postpone) the need for a confrontational FARC. HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With the move from the FAR section to the FARC section, the article has moved into the official voting phase. However, in a lot of cases additional work is done during this phase and the article can end up being kept - there is not really a set end date for this section if work is ongoing. Despite this, the comments by David indicate that major work needs to be done on the article - is this something that you feel you can address in a reasonable time frame? Also, I'm not sure why you think that FARC is "confrontational" - it is no more so than the FAR section, and as delegates YM and I do our best to make sure that there is as little confrontation and animosity as possible. Dana boomer (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FARC is "confrontational" in that it has formal voting, but yes, we're all really on the same team, working towards a better encyclopedia. I'm not sure what you mean by big problems. Granted, the (lack of) sources is an issue, but one that can be resolved with a few hours of fairly repetitive editing, as soon as someone tells me (or us, thank you Airplaneman) what is the desired way to source tech specs of legacy Macintoshes. HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably the only legit way for tech specs is to source news items from the day that discuss them, honestly, as I can't think of any definitively reliable compendiums out there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist the problems are simply too large for FAR to accommodate. If I had lots of free time, I'd try to help out... but I don't at the moment, and won't be able to address most of the issues until a later date. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HereToHelp has asked me to elaborate on which problems I think the article still has:
- Intro
- There shouldn't be any references in the intro, except for the pronunciation. Intros are supposed to summarize facts which will be sourced later on in the article.
- I disagree. WP:LEADCITE says there should be fewer sources, but it is not required to be devoid of them. Other than the pronunciation, there's only sources for the original Mac and original iMac (which are pretty important). I'd almost like to see a citation in the third paragraph. HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1979 to 1984
- Last half of first paragraph is unsourced (starting at "In September 1979, Raskin...").
- Since all you're doing is establishing that these people were in fact on the Mac team, i don't think there's a huge need for citations, but I added them for every possible contentious thing I could find. HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All but the last sentence of the second paragraph is unsourced.
- That source covers every single fact and number in that paragraph. I checked that on the last FAR. HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1984
- "Because the machine was entirely designed around the GUI, existing text-mode and command-driven applications had to be redesigned and the programming code rewritten; this was a time consuming task that many software developers chose not to undertake, and resulted in an initial lack of software for the new system." — unsourced
- As a software developer that doesn't seem particularly controversial. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Eraserhead for the most part (I am a Mac developer from 1985 to present) but the phrase "machine was entirely designed around the GUI" is technically incorrect; the word "entirely" at least should be dropped, or changed to "significantly" perhaps, and the word "machine" changed to "operating system". Finally, the phrase "and resulted in an initial lack..." should probably read "and could be regarded as a reason for an initial lack...". Geoffreyalexander (talk)
- 1985 to 1989
- Among the first three paragraphs, only the last sentence of the second paragraph is sourced. The rest still needs sourcing.
- "Later Macintosh computers had quieter power supplies and hard drives." — unsourced
- "In September 1986 Apple introduced the Macintosh Programmer's Workshop, or MPW that allowed software developers to create software for Macintosh on Macintosh, rather than cross-developing from a Lisa. In August 1987 Apple unveiled HyperCard, and introduced MultiFinder, which added cooperative multitasking to the Macintosh. In the Fall Apple bundled both with every Macintosh." — Could this be expanded? It's a two sentence paragraph that disrupts the flow of the section. The paragraph below it is also very short.
- Below that, the paragraph beginning "In 1987, Apple spun off its software business..." is entirely unsourced until the last sentence.
- "With the new Motorola 68030 processor came the Macintosh IIx in 1988, which had benefited from internal improvements, including an on-board MMU. It was followed in 1989 by a more compact version with fewer slots (the Macintosh IIcx) and a version of the Mac SE powered by the 16 MHz 68030 (the Macintosh SE/30, breaking the existing naming convention to avoid the name "SEx")." — all unsourced; the last parenthetical in particular reads like OR.
- 1990 to 1998
- "Despite these technical and commercial successes, Microsoft and Intel began to rapidly lower Apple's market share with the Windows 95 operating system and Pentium processors respectively. These significantly enhanced the multimedia capability and performance of IBM PC compatible computers, and brought Windows still closer to the Mac GUI." — unsourced. Rest of this section looks fine.
- 1998 to 2005
- "the least expensive Mac to date." — unsourced
- Could this section not be expanded? These are more modern Macs, so I would think that there's more to be said on each.
- 2006 onward
- Entire first paragrah is almost entirely unsourced.
- Hardware
- First paragraph is unsourced, as is second paragraph up to "USB was introduced in the 1998..."
- Couple of [citation needed]s.
- Software
- First and last paragraphs are entirely unsourced.
- Couple more [citation needed]s present.
- Advertising
- Very thin on sourcing as well. Both paragraphs are entirely unsourced until last sentence.
- Market share and user demographics
- Disjointed prose. First two paragraphs are very short, and last paragraph is only one sentence long.
- More [citation needed] tags to be addressed.
- References
Still having some problems here too:
- Reference #14 "Linzmayer, Owen W. (2004). [www.owenink.com Apple Confidential 2.0]. No Starch Press. pp. 113. ISBN 1-59327-010-0." is malformatted.
- References 25 and 26 (oldcomputers.com) aren't loading for me right now. Using Google archives, though, the site doesn't look like a RS.
- What makes EveryMac.com a RS?
I agree that there are still a lot of problems, but for now I'll ask to hold since HereToHelp was so quick to fix the first batch of problems I uncovered. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for asking for a hold (seconded). The biggest issue is how to cite tech specs (although I've responded to some of the low hanging fruit above). Der Wohltemperierte (David) Fuchs could not name a "definitively reliable compendium" to cite. Apple's database is reliable, but sparse. Other sites (oldcomputers.com, everymac.com) give more information (a prose description rather than filling out a table), but are apparently not reliable and have commercial interests. Mactracker is a tertiary database, which might have some oversight by its creator and feedback of users, but it is compiled in part from Wikipedia and requires fact checkers to download it. And news articles from the era are not online, and impossible for me to access and other to verify. So, in summary, if we cannot establish a precedent for the preferred way to cite the technical specifications of legacy Macintoshes, there is no way to properly source the article. HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was reading through a previous FAR of Macintosh and found that this article has once again grown in size. I used everymac.com to source tech specs in the (now GA) MacBook Pro article because the reviewer discouraged primary sources (Apple.com) and pointed me towards the site. I know FA standards are more strict, but I agree with HereToHelp that if we can't use sites such as everymac, we can't source the tech specs. Back to the size of the article: we could consider trimming the tech specs if need be to shorten it - is length still an issue? Thanks for putting it on hold, TPH. Airplaneman ✈ 21:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-Apple sites provide critical context and information. Let's pick one and switch to it. HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm used to everymac.com, as I have used it before. Oldcomputers.com could be used for older computers/OSes, as everymac (which I searched yesterday in an attempt to find a System 7 "24 to 32 bit switch" source) covers mostly modern Macs. Airplaneman ✈ 22:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: although only taking a cursory glance, the main problems are the uncited statements, some small MoS issues (see my MacBook Pro good article review as the issues are similar), and bias towards current models in the "Product line" (in other words kill it). I would also kill the "See also" section and the portal links. I'll see if I can give a more comprehensive review at a later date. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, from experience David Fuchs (talk · contribs) is quite knowledgeable about this and it would be best to address these issues more substantively to get the article up to FA standards. -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason why we can't address these issues is because no one can tell us how we should reliably cite tech specs of legacy Macs. If we could do that to everyone's satisfaction, everything else will fall in to place. HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To would-be closing admin: WP:MAC is undergoing active revival and reorganization, which will hopefully coalesce into active article improvement. I also note that no solution for citing the technical specifications on legacy Macs has been agreed upon, making it difficult to reference the article. Activity on both "sides" has been low, and I ask you to retain this nomination on hold until we can get a strong force of editors working on problems with agreed-upon solutions. It will happen. Soon. HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. This article lacks a clear focus. The Macintosh is presented as a "series of several lines" of products. But more than half the lead is summary of Apple's current product line. This may be fine for trade magazine article, but not for an encyclopedia article. Strictly from a hardware perspective, it makes no sense to treat the x86 based macs and the older ones in the same article, etc. Is this article about the brand? Is it about all the computers that could/can ran something call Mac OS (with or without X). The heavy emphasis on software throughout the article could lead one to think that. Can't tell for sure... The timeline even has the iPod and iPhone in it. I suggest it be split in more manageable sub-articles. Pcap ping 14:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I admire your holistic approach, rather than nitpicking over citations. The nature of the wiki is for articles to evolve, perhaps not with an original design plan, and be molded by their editors and critics. But I feel like the feedback is increasingly saying that this article is unfeatureable: you want it split, he wants it cited in ways no one can agree on, she wants it more recent, you want it categorical. We can't please everyone at once - trying to do so leads to the contortionist structures you criticize. HereToHelp (talk to me) 14:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to the lack of feedback on what constitutes a reliable source, I have opened a request on the reliable sources noticeboard. HereToHelp (talk to me) 04:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have started a project to create ((cite mac)), which will make it easy to reference models to both Apple and everymac.com (which looks like the best third-party site out there). Hopefully it will be ready to be used in the next few days. HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been here for ages. Hardly anything has been done this month. Looks like a delist to me. Tony (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the problem is that we're not sure what to do with hardware sourcing. Airplaneman ✈ 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- New developments (June)
- Delist unfortunately, because if no one can figure out the sourcing, then it should not remain an FA until it has been sorted out. Sometimes, and article just does not fall under the strict FA standards any longer, and in this case, the sources must be dealt with independently. —fetch·comms 21:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have gone through and converted every hardware reference I could find to ((cite mac)). This seems to be the best solution anyone has come up with. I will be working in the next few days to remedy all concerns. Airplaneman will too (nudge nudge). HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorsing my delist for now. Fetchcomms' reasoning is spot-on. If we can't figure out a proper citation method, it probably doesn't deserve FA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We just did! Since no one else had a better idea, we created ((cite mac)) to give links to Apple's knowledge base and a third party site. HereToHelp (talk to me) 05:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is copied from User_talk:Fetchcomms#Mac_FAR:
- I thought the original concerns with were the sources themselves (relying on Apple's website and questions about EveryMac's reliability). The one thing I don't like is having to do here is remove content because it is unsourced and possibly cause a decrease in the comprehensiveness of the article. Also, I'm not sure what advantages this cite mac template has--it is not in a "standard" format (like MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.) nor does it contain information like the source page's title, publisher, date published, etc. Other issues:
Originally, the hardware architecture was so closely tied to the Mac OS operating system that it was impossible to boot an alternative operating system. The most common workaround, used even by Apple for A/UX, was to boot into Mac OS and then to hand over control to a program that took over the system and acted as a boot loader. This technique was no longer necessary with the introduction of Open Firmware-based PCI Macs, though it was formerly used for convenience on many Old World ROM systems due to bugs in the firmware implementation.[citation needed] Now, Mac hardware boots directly from Open Firmware or EFI, and Macs are no longer limited to running just the Mac OS X.
- under "Hardware and software" subheading "Software", and
Apple directly sub-contracts hardware production to Asian original equipment manufacturers such as Asus, maintaining a high degree of control over the end product. By contrast, most other companies (including Microsoft) create software that can be run on hardware produced by a variety of third-parties, like Dell, HP/Compaq, and Lenovo. Consequently, the Macintosh buyer has comparably fewer options.
- under "Hardware". "It is available only in Bluetooth, and the Mighty Mouse (re-branded as "Apple Mouse") is available with a cord." under the same heading is unsourced, and "Because Mac OS X is a UNIX like system, borrowing heavily from FreeBSD, many applications written for Linux or BSD run on Mac OS X, often using X11. Apple's less-common operating system means that a much smaller range of third-party software is available, but many popular applications such as Microsoft Office and Firefox are cross-platform and run natively." under software is as well. Quite a few ends-of-paragraphs under "1985 to 1989: Desktop publishing era" are unsourced (and if the ref is in the next paragraph, it should be doubled). Lastly, "Mac OS X’s share of the OS market increased from 7.31% in December 2007 to 9.63% in December 2008, which is a 32% increase in market share during 2008, compared to a 22% increase during 2007." under "Market share and user demographics" is unsourced--and these numbers definitely need to be attributed to somewhere. A major other pet peeve--please, please, go through all the existing citations and italicize titles and stuff. And add publishers/works! Also--citations need to be consistent--I see some "Apple" as publisher, and some "Apple Inc.."--go with the latter, and remove the period (template auto-adds one). Ref consistency needs a ton of work. —fetch·comms 13:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In 2007, Apple Computer Inc. became Apple Inc. so we can either use the name appropriate for when the reference was published, or (my preference) just say Apple. ((cite mac)) is a work in progress as far as formatting. Apple has last updated info for each article; everymac does not. I'm not ready to give up on the nomination yet but I certainly now understand your viewpoint of delist, then fix. Thank you. HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
- Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: favorite (A) (British: favourite), aluminum (A) (British: aluminium), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), any more (B) (American: anymore), program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).
- The script has spotted the following contractions: isn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, —mono 21:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Due to the number of outstanding delist votes and the amount of time this nomination has been up, it is close to being delisted. Heretohelp, if you feel that you have addressed the comments of the editors above, please ping them on their talk pages and ask them to revisit this review. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand; thank you for your generosity and time taken to provide such valuable feedback. You have persuaded me that there is a lot more to do both systematically (references) and thematically (scope, organization), and these issues require more time and energy than the FARC environment permits. I need to check with Airplaneman and WP:MAC, but I'm about ready to be done. HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ahhh I wish I would have saw this some time ago. It's still a great article, would hate to see it go, but there are several good points here. I reworked the intro, hopefully for the better, to get rid of some of the jumping context problems. That said, besides my edit there hasn't been any action for a week really, and several of the points raised above still stand unfortunately. RN 08:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.