Login
Login

Wikipedia:Peer review/Macintosh Classic/archive1

===Macintosh Classic===

:{{PR/header|Macintosh Classic| Wikipedia:Peer review/Macintosh Classic/archive1|May 2008}}

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Category:May 2008 peer reviews

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it up to GA standards. At the moment, it's very short - but I'd like some feedback on what could be added.

Thanks, Wackymacs (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

:Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Macintosh Classic/archive1.

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting but very short article - needs to be expanded to have a hope of GA, let alone FA. Here are some ideas for improvement:

  • The lead needs to be expanded to summarize the article per WP:LEAD. Nothing should be solely in the lead.
  • Done. — Wackymacs (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • History - any idea how many units were produced / sold? Why did they stop production (assume for the next model)? What limitations were there in this model that led to the development of the next one?
  • No info available on sales/production figures I'm afraid. Not sure where to put limitations (I think a "Limitations" section would be too short on its own) — Wackymacs (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Could limitations be put in the history section? Because of these, it was discontinued in X and the successor had these changes / innovations. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Any sort of critical reception information - what did MacWeek or MacWorld (if it existed then) think of it?
  • I added some info from a review from Home Office Computing magazine. I don't think MacWEEK did reviews, but I'll try find something from Macworld. - Wackymacs (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A model article is useful for ideas, etc. I note MacBook is GA.
  • Thanks for the help. I've added a Design section and lots more info (and another photo). — Wackymacs (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry not to have more ideas - this is so short there is not much else to say. Refs and images look fine. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

:*No need to apologize - I had trouble trying to think of what to add next! Thanks for your help so far. — Wackymacs (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I have added review info from PC User, PC Week and MacWEEK. — Wackymacs (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

;Laser brain's comments

  • "The similarity of this model to its predecessors limited innovation." The similarity didn't limit innovation, it was a result of the lack of innovation, right? Maybe say "Due to limited innovation, this model was similar to its predecessors."
  • "The low-end model Classic had 1 MB memory..." Do you mean "Classic model"?
  • I removed some superfluous commas from the lead.
  • The lead seems overly devoted to specs and price. You might achieve better balance by mentioning more of the history or reception.
  • You mention that educators liked this model because of the low price. Were they given a discounted price from what you mention in the lead? I recall reading that schools got deeply discounted Macs. Worth researching and mentioning in the lead.
  • "The Classic was in part popular because of its low price, which also contributed to its popularity in the education sector." This seems clumsy. I can't think of a way to reword it right now, but maybe you can give it a go.
  • "The 9-inch display was criticized because a full page would not fit at full size." No need to use passive voice because you are still talking about Schafer, I believe. I think you need to globalize this sentence a bit. A "full page" does not mean the same thing to everyone. To me it is 8.5 by 11 inches, but other countries use different standards of letter-sized paper.
  • I think you should break off the last paragraph of the History section and make a "Reception" section. Maybe it's not long enough, but the critical reviews are not really "History".
  • The first sentence in the Features section is verbatim from the lead, which doesn't read well. I would reword that in the lead.
  • "A software bundle called Smartbundle was sold at some dealerships with the Classic." Passive voice obscures the subject.
  • I think you might have a comprehensiveness issue due to the lack of Production information. You mention where they were manufactured but not much else. More research might be needed to dig up additional journal articles. --Laser brain (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Useful feedback, thanks. There really isn't a lot of information available on the Classic, since it was simply an upgraded Mac Plus/SE made cheaper as a budget model. I have been using Thomson Gale Infotrac and EBSOhost to find information so far, which are the largest reference databases I have access to. However...I could probably add a section on Manufacturing - but it would be more specific to compact Macintoshes as a whole, since they all used a similar manufacturing process. What do you think? — Wackymacs (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I imagine it must be quite a challenge to dig up information here. You might have to go to a local Mac users' group meeting and find some crusty old Mac guy who saved all the issues of Mac World in his cellar. :) I don't think you need a Manufacturing section based on what you've said, though. --Laser brain (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

{{user|La Pianista}} comments:

I've done a some minor things that were, to me, too trifling to list here. Dibs? :-) (Note: Half of this peer review I completed on my computer and saved before continuing it today, so it may repeat some of Laser brain's comments.)

  • This is just my taste, but "The Macintosh Classic (code-named XO) was a personal computer manufactured by Apple Computer and introduced in October 1990." would sound better as "The Macintosh Classic (code-named XO), introduced in October 1990, was a personal computer manufactured by Apple Inc." (noticed I used "Inc." instead of repeating "computer")
  • Two problems I have with this: The use of extra commas in your suggested re-word are superfluous, and I use 'Apple Computer' for the reason that was the company's name when the Classic was introduced. — Wackymacs (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Demand for another Compact Macintosh, such as the popular Macintosh Plus and the SE, spurred the introduction of the Classic." Word choice is a little questionable here for me. Maybe "The Classic was designed in accordance with demands for another Compact Macintosh, such as the popular Macintosh Plus."
  • "The Classic used the same 9-inch Monochrome CRT display, 512×342 pixel resolution, and had the same 4 MB memory limit as its predecessors." Parallelism is important. Instead, try "The Classic used the same 9-inch Monochrome CRT display, 512×342 pixel resolution, and 4 MB memory limit as its predecessors."
  • Except, your reword doesn't seem to make full sense. It had a memory limit, it didn't use a memory limit. Correct? — Wackymacs (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Right...sorry about that. =) --LaPianista! 19:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, a little different wording, to add some contrast in the sentences. Original: "The Classic was popular in the education sector because of its low price." Possible replacement: "Due to its low price, the Classic became popular in the education sector."
  • This has already been reworded twice, and nobody can seem to decide on what sounds the best. I think it's all down to personal taste. — Wackymacs (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. But whichever method you choose, it can potentially sound better. --LaPianista! 19:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "It was up to 25% faster than the Plus, and used an Apple SuperDrive 3.5" floppy disk drive as standard." See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2008_March_28#Urgent_comma_help this discussion] from the Language ref desk. You should either remove the comma or add an "it" after "and."
  • "The Classic was superseded by the Macintosh Classic II in 1991, and was discontinued on September 14, 1992." Same issue as directly above.
  • Try not to repeat "The Classic was popular in the education sector in part because of its low price." Feature it in the body; it has no purpose in the introduction because it serves as no adequate summary.
  • I think it would be better to change $1,000 and other prices numbers into US $1,000. (notice that US $ is linked).
  • I believe that would not be in accordance with MOS guidelines. The first occurrence is linked and has US$ in front of the figure, the rest are not (because they don't need to be). — Wackymacs (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What I meant was that all dollar amounts be changed to US $. Of course, only the first is linked. --LaPianista! 19:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The first few sentences under "Design" all start with "The Classic" or "The Macintosh Classic." Try rephrasing the sentences for variance.
  • "Liza Schafer of Home Office Computing praised the Classic's ease of use and price. The 9-inch display was criticized because a full U.S. letter page (8½ × 11 inches) would not fit at full size." Maybe some transition between the positive and the negative would make it run more smoothly.

Hope this was helpful! :-) LaPianista! 17:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

:* I'll look into your other suggestions, and might get an external copy-editor to take a look at the article before I submit to WP:GA. — Wackymacs (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

::*Good luck then! The more opinions on an article, the better. And sorry if my signature disturbs the whole page here...I'm trying to fix it. --LaPianista! 19:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)