Wikipedia:Featured article review/Acorn Computers/archive1

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 20:43, 18 May 2008.

---

Acorn Computers

Review commentary

User:Lmno‎, User:TreveX‎ notified.

This article is far from FA standard:

• Referencing is not even GA standard. "Prehistory" section has 0 references. "CPU Ltd (1978–83)" section has only 2 references. "Acorn Computer Group plc (1983–85)" has only 1 reference. No references in "BBC Master and Archimedes" section and paragraph before it. No references in first 2 paragraphs of "Break up of Acorn (1998–2000) and on-going developments of their technology" section.
• References 5, 7, 13 and 16 have formatting problems.
• The article is not comprehensive. It only talks about the history of Acorn. I know the company no longer exists, but what is it's impact on computers nowadays? What was the corporate culture of Acorn like when it was still around? Also, the "Revival of the Acorn trademark" section is only two sentences and needs to be expanded.
• The article has a lot of POV words and sentences:
  • "it left an impressive legacy"
  • "It was a very influential documentary"
  • "The BBC Micro sold spectacularly well"
  • "a successful advertising campaign"
  • "The apparently strong demand for Electrons proved to be illusory"
  • "Acorn was in real trouble"
  • "ultimately proved to be something of a flop"
  • "proved to a drawn-out and expensive process that proved futile"
  • "The dire financial situation was brought to a head in February 1985"
  • "met with great success"
  • "was considerably more powerful and advanced than most offerings of the day"
  • "Acorn's last real hopes of becoming a major player in the computer industry had fizzled out: set-top boxes were not taking off as expected, and the Network Computer, too, had been a bit of a flop"
• There are also many sentences written in a way which is not formal or encyclopediac:
  • "With the Atom on the market, Acorn could begin to think about its replacement."
  • "should they move in that direction?"
  • "In later years the Tube would play an important role in the development of Acorn's own processor."
  • "this was not going to be easy with a 2–4 MHz 6502-based system doing the graphics. Acorn would need a new architecture."
  • "if a class of graduate students could create a competitive 32-bit processor, then Acorn would have no problem"
  • "It was hoped that the Network Computer would create a significant new sector in which Acorn Network Computing would be a major player"
  • "Acorn's watershed year was 1984 – it had gone public just as the home computer market collapsed. It was the year when Atari was sold, Apple nearly went bust, and Acorn had solved the one problem it had had throughout its history: production volumes."

--Kaypoh (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the referencing, there isn't nearly enough. This is also the problem with POV sentences, they are pretty uncontentious statements but need to be referenced, especially when words such as "spectacular" are used. As for the unencyclopedic sentences, some of them, I agree, are written in a more informal 'magazine' stlye (e.g. the rhetorical "should they move in that direction?" or "if a class of graduate students could create a competitive 32-bit processor, then Acorn would have no problem". However I think a few comments are just nit-picking: how is "With the Atom on the market, Acorn could begin to think about its replacement" or "It was hoped that the Network Computer would create a significant new sector in which Acorn Network Computing would be a major player" unencyclopedic or set in an innapropriate tone?

Kaypoh asks "The article is not comprehensive. It only talks about the history of Acorn. I know the company no longer exists, but what is it's impact on computers nowadays?" Try reading the initroduction! "Though the company was broken up into several independent operations in 1998, it leaves an impressive legacy, particularly in the development of RISC personal computers. A number of Acorn's former subsidiaries live on today - notably ARM Holdings who are globally dominant in the mobile phone and PDA microprocessor market."

The section on the new company was (wrongly IMHO) split off.

To be honest, I don't have the time to fix all this. The FA may well lapse now but I just thought I'd respond to these comments. TreveX^talk 15:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the lead section talks about the legacy, but there should also be a "Legacy" section with more info. Also, I only gave a few examples of POV and unencyclopediac statements, there are more. If you don't have the time, you can let the article lose FA status and later work on it so it can become a GA. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need a legacy section - as this is dealt with in the general prose. Any number of subjects relating to and aspects of an article can be important but don't necessarily 'need' a section of their own if they're dealt with properly. The legacy is discussed (RiscOS, ARM etc) at various points. TreveX^talk 21:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. There are way too many issues with the tone, and way too few references. It does read more like a magazine article what with phrases like "impressive legacy", and would need a lot of TLC to even be GA class. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns referencing (1c), prose (1a), and POV (1d). Marskell (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delist 1c - lead is too short. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We only have one definite comment in FARC but there is absolutely nothing happening here. Removing. Marskell (talk) 20:34, 18 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.