In the late 90s, Apple Computer was on the brink of bankruptcy, until they brought back old cofounder Steve Jobs. Jobs relentlessly pruned Apple's product line and brought the company back to prosperity. But in between the saga of hits like the iMac and the iPod... there was the Power Mac G4 Cube, a commercial failure so sudden that the product was discontinued barely a year later, and remained arguably one of Jobs' greatest missteps in his time back at Apple. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 20:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have edited Apple-related topics for nearly three years, with my familiarity, can I consult for the position co-nominator to help since I have yet not contribute significantly to this particular article. Wingwatchers (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the contrary, co-nominators are expected to have made significant contributions and to have been invited by the primary nominator. Graham Beards (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.
Lede
small form factor Macintosh personal computer - can we reword avoid three links together like this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 14:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
at customers in between - I don't think this means anything, clarify. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 14:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reviews noted the high cost of the machine in comparison to its power - could probably say how much it was marketed at. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 14:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel like some of the stats, dimensions, release date and weight would be useful for the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 14:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The technical words (RAM, optical disk, hard drive) need linking Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A higher-end model was available only through Apple's online store - and what was this model? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure what is normal about these articles, but would specifications not be more suitable under overview? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
. "I wanted the [flat-panel] Cinema Display but I don't need the features of the PowerMac," he told Newsweek. + can we have the source where he says this directly after the citation (the sentence)? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
displays and peripherals "[they] create - there's something missing in this sentence, as it doesn't read right Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
500 MHz model and added new memory, hard drive, and graphics options. - I'd like to know what these are earlier in the prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
having aesthetic flaws turned into a negative public relations story for Apple, as well as turning off potential buyers for whom the aesthetics - you use "aesthetics" a lot - could you maybe use a synonym? You use it twice in this sentence alone. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Macworld wrote that consumers treated the Cube as "an underpowered... Did we have an author for this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considering the item didn't sell well due to the price, it's surprising we don't have the amount in the article at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey User:Lee Vilenski, I think I've addressed most of the above. In retards to mentioning the price, I'm following WP:NOTSALE, which recommends against pricing unless it's integral to the subject in sources, and in general I didn't find that to be the case in coverage. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 22:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi David! I don't think I'm going to get to more than the lead, but a few comments:
The way that the Power Mac G4 Cube is referred to in short varies in the first paragraph, with "the Cube", "the product", and "the machine" all making appearances. Being more intentional about terms used and not being afraid to just use "it" might help a bit with making the prose flow. ((u|Sdkb))talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On release, the Cube won awards and plaudits for its design. Reviews noted the high cost of the machine in comparison to its power, its limited expandability, and cosmetic defects. This might be better as a single sentence with "but" as a conjunction. Also, it confused me a little to hear that it was praised for its design but criticized for cosmetic defects, which I'd think would count as part of the design. ((u|Sdkb))talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The product was an immediate commercial failure; made it a rare failure for the company; Despite its lack of success with consumers There's a lot of redundancy here that re-wording might be able to eliminate. ((u|Sdkb))talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The New York Museum of Modern Art holds a G4 Cube Lots of old computers are held in museums. I'm not seeing why this one being in the Met is noteworthy enough to be due for the lead. Also, the along with its distinctive Harman Kardon transparent speakers feels wedged in there—if it's an important enough design element to warrant covering in the lead, it should be mentioned along with the other design stuff. ((u|Sdkb))talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope that helps, and best of luck with the nomination! ((u|Sdkb))talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey Sdkb, thanks for the comments. I've made tweaks to all of the above. The only thing I'm iffy on is whether to cut the MoMa reference; it generated news coverage from papers like the NY Times when it happened, which I feel demonstrates that it wasn't a usual thing (certainly back then), and it also ties into the notions of how it was a beautiful product that just didn't have a practical demo for it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 15:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read the article, and while I certainly see why it's in the body, I'm still not quite sold on it for the lead. Ultimately, though, I'm just here for quick comments following your Discord invite, not to !vote support or oppose, so no worries if you ignore any of my suggestions where you have a different view. If you're looking for reviews to do yourself, I have a pre-FAC peer review open here. Best wishes with this FAC! Cheers, ((u|Sdkb))talk 20:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"sold by Apple Computer Inc" The company was now simply as Apple Inc, for "sold", suggest changing it to "developed and marketed" for more details
Overuses of "the Cube", consider changing some to "it"
"Apple's designers developed new technologies and production techniques to create the product", removed that, every company do that everytime for innovation, don't you agree?
Overuses of "Apple", suggest switching some to "the company"
Grammatical grasp needed further imporvemnets and maybe copyedit, for example: "born", recommended "drew inspiration"
No details was available for the release date, to announced a product was different than releasing it to public
I have taken the liberty and replied to these comments here [2]. If the nominator disagrees, please ignore me. Graham Beards (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Graham. I would agree that the changes were not a net improvement. As to the above, I'm not sure the comments above demonstrate that WW has a strong enough grasp of the English language to improve the text beyond its current state. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 19:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made a few edits rather than list nit-picks here. Please feel free to revert them if they are not helpful.-Graham Beards (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The Power Mac G4 Cube is a small form factor personal computer, sold by Apple Computer, Inc. between July 2000 and 2001." I don't think the comma after personal computer is needed.
"the Cube was born from Apple CEO" -> the Cube was conceived by Apple CEO, to remove an idiom (Jobs did not literally give birth to this)
"to give the impression the computer is floating." -> to give the impression that the computer is floating.
"The machine has no fan to move air, and thus heat, through the case." I had to read this a couple times to figure out what is meant. Perhaps, "The machine does not have a fan to move air and heat through the case."
"the high price might spell the product's failure." -> the high price might cause the product's failure, to remove another idiom
"Macworld found the touch-sensitive power button too sensitive and that they accidentally activated sleep mode regularly, and reported that the stock 5400-rpm hard drive and 64 MB of RAM on the base model slowed the system considerably." Recommend splitting this into two sentences, as this contains two separate critiques of the product.
The infobox mentions that this is part of the "Power Mac" product family, but I don't see that information in the article.
Lede says, "The Power Mac G4 Cube is a small form factor" where is this information cited in the article body?
Lede says, "Apple positioned the Cube in the middle of its product range, between the consumer iMac G3 and the professional Power Mac G4." Where is this information in the article body?
It's discussed where Jobs is talking about his desires for the computer and later in how it stacks up against the iMac and Power Macs, but I've made it a bit less oblique of a mention.
Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the review, Z1720. I believe I've addressed the above, and responded inline where I thought it was relevant. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 19:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My concerns have been addressed, I support. Z1720 (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]