Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/PowerBook 100

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 by User:SandyGeorgia 04:08, 9 June 2008 [1].

PowerBook 100

edit

Self-nominator - Recently rewrote this from scratch. Good prose, fully referenced. Copyedits (some major, some minor) made by users Finetooth, La Pianista, AnnaFrance, GrahamColm and Laser brain. Archived peer review here. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

There is something wrong in ref 9 Wacky. --Efe (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing it. Fixed. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. --Efe (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates in references need to be wikilinked (the ones that appear as YYYY-MM-DD).
  • "US $2,300" → "US$2,300"
  • "Priced at US$2,300" — Link the US$ here, so that it's at least linked once in the text itself.
  • "September 3, 1992" — Wikilink
  • Gary, dates don't have to be wikilinked at all. See MOSNUM. It's a most undesirable practice, since the developers are impossible to move on fixing the mechanism. TONY (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:SYL seems to say otherwise. Gary King (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MOSNUM (MOS:SYL, which stands for what?) certainly doesn't say it's mandatory; on the contrary, MOSNUM simply points out the instances in which the autodud should not be used. What part of "A combination of a day number and a month can be autoformatted" seems to be mandatory? TONY (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but why is it undesirable? It formats dates according to individual user preferences. Gary King (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a raft of arguments and the petition. There's more when I find it. Further discussion on your talk. TONY (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are using {{citation}}, which I like less than {{cite web}}, but that is up to you. In any case, the dates are still not wikilinked (such as in "Joannidi, Christine (2002-03-14),"), and the accessdates also need to be wikilinked (such as "Retrieved on 9 May 2008") because it is showing backwards from how it should for me (I've got dates setup as January 1, 2008 so this shows 'incorrectly' for me.)
Gary King (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case you didn't know, the various cite templates are inconsistent when it comes to page numbers, and cite news does not allow usage without the title parameter being used (which presents a problem when you don't have the source title and only the publisher/volume/issue). These are both reasons of why I stopped using those, and switched to using solely {{Citation}}. Anyway, those things should be fixed now. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that perhaps something should be brought up with those templates, by maybe FAC submitters, including myself, yourself, and at least User:jbmurray, who also enjoys using {{citation}}? {{Citation}} is also poorly designed, too. We just need an administrator to edit the templates; if we make edits that don't affect existing pages using the template, then that should be fine. Also, if you look at the Most linked-to templates, {{cite web}} is there multiple times while {{citation}} doesn't even show up. Gary King (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't noticed anything wrong with {{Citation}}. But...such discussion is off-topic here, no? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The accessdates are returned incorrectly for {{citation}}, and there is no period at the end of it (which can't be fixed at this point, though.) Gary King (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that is nitpicking. The page number inconsistency and how {{Cite news}} demands use of the title parameter are more annoying. Are all the issues in this article fixed now? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, very well done. I provided feedback during peer review and on a fresh read-through did not find any other issues. --Laser brain (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support indeed. Good standard to set for computer-related articles, which have not typically been well-written. Thorough. Just two stylistic things: I'd avoid the "[person's name] decided to [do something]. Think carefully before "[person's name] began to ...". You might consider positioning "however," at the start of sentences. These are partly personal preferences. TONY (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and a disclosure from me; I was invited to take a look at this article last week, or the week before, (a week is a long time on Wikipedia), and before the nomination, I made a few, minor, edits. I was, and I am still impressed with the readability of the article, despite its being about a computer. This is an important contribution to the history of the personal computer, well done Wacky, and I hope that there are no hard feelings between us with regard to our edit conflicts. Graham. GrahamColmTalk 21:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all - your contributions are valuable and were most welcomed. Thanks again for your help. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this article's actually been on my TODO list for a while; seems you beat me to improving it. ;-) Anyhow, congratulations with another very good Macintosh-related article - the prose is top quality and the references are all solid. I'll read through it again tomorrow but I don't think there's much to complain about, apart from what has already been said. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, and all the links checked out with the link checker. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is reliable if you base it on their client list: http://www.lunar.com/portfolio/clients.html Lunar Design have worked for some of the best-known brands in the world. Its also the only source I could find for those specific design awards the PB100 received. I will add access dates where needed. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which current refs are missing access dates? I just went through and didn't notice any web refs without one. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 10 "Said, Carolyn" is the one I see now. I THINK there were more earlier, but I've slept since then... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaving the bit about the awards site out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. I'm on the fence about it. (I'm unwatching the FAC, btw) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It all looks pretty good - if you'll allow me to nitpick:
  • "It did not have a built-in floppy disk drive but was noted for its unique compact design that placed a trackball pointing device in front of the keyboard for ease of use." - it's not a contradiction so "but" shouldn't be used, but I think simply mentioning that it doesn't have a floppy disk drive is a bit strange - you should probably attach some importance to the statement. And although you do mention the trackball later on, you don't show that it was "noted".
  • "Apple announced its highest figures yet" - slightly unclear what you're referring to; was it their revenue which was the highest yet? I also don't like using "the highest" twice in a sentence, although it's hard to get around.
  • If you read the whole sentence, it does say "$7.1 billion in revenues" — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double additive at the end of the first sentence with "in addition" and then "also" which could probably be avoided.
  • Is there even a such thing as a "double additive"? Why is this a problem exactly? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, meant to say first section not sentence. And I just thought it was slightly weak to have two sentences in a row which were effectively "also"s - maybe just a personal thing. Changed it myself now anyway. Trebor (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Design", the sentence beginning "The 100, however," has too many subclauses; I find it very hard to follow the meaning.
  • If possible, some expansion on its legacy would be good. The previous reviews quoted don't explain why it's winning all these awards for being the greatest gadget - it comes as somewhat of a surprise. If there's been a modern review of it - why it was good, what influence it has had (if any) - that might be good to include.
  • I'm not sure what else would be said. The awards are for its design (hence, 'design awards'), which is sufficiently explained in the 'Design' section. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was more curious about the "greatest gadget of all time" (or tenth-greatest) accolade. It could just be me, but the rest of the article didn't seem to suggest it was that "good" (for want of a better word). The BBC link says it was chosen because it "helped define the layout of all future notebook PCs" - if that's true, I think more information on its legacy should be included. Trebor (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, finding reliable sources for that type of information would prove difficult. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from those pieces I thought it was a very well done article - informative, easy-to-read and well-referenced. Trebor (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to support. Trebor (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I might be missing it, but would it be feasible to have a little bit of a closing talking about the influence the 100 had on the next line of powerbooks, if any? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subsequent models of similar form factor were the PowerBook Duo series, which improved upon the 100's portability. I guess you could say Apple used the 100 as the basis for the Duo's design. However, I don't have any sources to back this up kind of statement. The 100's successors are mentioned at the end of the lead, which I think is sufficient. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Excellent article. It brought tears to my eyes, since it was my first laptop, and I had convinced my employer at the time to buy it for me. I have one really minor concern, for which I have no answer. It mentions Apple's stock prices. Usually, in the financial press, stock prices are normalized by stock splits. We really should identify the price as being at the time. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/PowerBook_100&oldid=1138469281"