Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sol-20/archive1

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 January 2020 [1].

---

Sol-20

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The Sol-20 is a surprisingly little-known microcomputer given its place in history. It appears to be the first truly mass-produced personal computer - there are numerous earlier examples of PCs like the Micral and Altair, but they were only the CPU box and required an external terminal of some sort to be useful; most also did nothing when turned on and the user had to "switch in" a program. In contrast, the Sol-20 could be purchased complete, plugged into the wall, plugged into any television for display, and thanks to its onboard ROM, was running as soon as you turned it on. It pre-dates the "1977 trinity" machines -TRS-80, PET and Apple II- which also had these qualities, and sold some ten thousand or more units during its two-year production run. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review

• https://www.sol20.org/ and https://www.pc-history.org/ look self-published

The first is used only in a parenthetical note and seems uncontroversial? I could simply remove the note if need-be, it doesn't add much. The second is a re-"printing" of the original book, "Stan Veit's History of the Personal Computer", should I re-cite it to that source? I am actually quoting the web page itself, so I cited that, but I could probably get a copy of the book somewhere.

For the first one, I would remove the note. For the second I would credit the original source in some way. I don't think it's necessary to get a copy of the book but one could say something along the lines of, "reprinted from... "

Fixed and fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Ham Radio Horizons and Byte sources should use the same format as other sources, unless there is a reason.

Moved.

• Please cite specific pages for where the information can be found in the Byte article, Swaine & Freiberger 2014, Felsenstein 1977, Systems 1977. (Longer page range makes info harder to find).

Ok, so...

Byte moved and clarified exactly what I was quoting with another cite for the price comparison.

Swaine & Freiberger fixed, just an oversight.

Found an original for Felsenstein 1977, re-cited and pages added. That version showed blockquotes, one of which I begged to be included.

Systems 1977 - this is actually referring to the entire document.

That leaves Veit, which I simply don't have in a version with numbers. I know it's Chapter 9, and the page range is around 138 to 142, but that's all I can get out of Google.

• Is Kilobaud Magazine being used to cite anything?

Apparently not, removed. That is very odd, normally the cite tool I have turned on would put that up as an unused template. Perhaps it is no longer working, I'll have to look.

• Otherwise, sources seem reliable for what they're being used for. A cursory search didn't find any more information.
• It's a shame there's only google preview for PC World article, which is one of the better sources from a RS perspective. If you'd like I can request it via ILL from my university.

Oh, I'd love that! I'm also STILL trying to get a photo of the expansion bus, I know someone that has one of these machines (still working if you can believe it) but he keeps forgetting to forward them :-) Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested. If you send me an email, I will send you the scan as soon as I get it. buidhe 01:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• I was able to verify some information through source checks. buidhe 14:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Description—this is all cited inline as per FA criteria. Is it necessary to state "From the Sol Systems Manual unless otherwise noted."? buidhe 01:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• Lead caption needs editing for clarity

• File:Popular_Electronics_cover_July_1976.jpg lacks a sufficient FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

All should be fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Still a bit of an issue with the last of these - that fair-use tag is intended for cases where the publication, not the thing featured, is the focus. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there some other tag I should use? Perhaps you can point to a similar example? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7 I think this is a great article. Although I remember with other computers of the era, I'd never heard of this one. Which is a way of saying that your work here is truly appreciated.

• "where it was a huge hit" Suggest deleting "huge" per WP:PEACOCK

Done.

• Link "modem". Most millennials would never have seen one.

Added.

• Link "baud" A term you never hear anymore

Changed and linked to BPS instead.

• "The terminal was deliberately designed to allow it to be easily repaired by anyone. Combined with the Pennywhistle, users would have a cost-effective way to access Community Memory from anywhere." "anyone"? "anywhere"? Sounds like hyperbole. Suggest deleting these words.

Deleted.

• "with its primary funding source" Who was that?

Added.

• "hacking minded engineers" hyphen required here?

That seemed wordy in retrospect, removed.

• Footnotes a, c and f could use a reference

Well A is a claim of obvious fact, and the second part is reffed in the body. F already has the ref. Added C.

Suggest moving the reference to the end of footnote f? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Link Static random-access memory

Already is...

• Link BASIC programming language on first appearance

Moved to first.

• "Stan Veit later joked to Les that they named it after Solomon in another way" Suggest "Stan Veit later joked to Solomon that they named it after him in another way"

Changed.

• " a kludged up box of parts", hyphen required here?

Grammarly, which is normally spot-on with these, says no. But eyeballs say yes, so added.

• 8" should be "8-inch" and 5.25" should be "5.25-inch" Remember, most people have never encountered the old measurements, and would not know what the whole 9^x means.

Added. I assume we don't need a conversion here, as this was the name more than the physical dimension?

That would be my position. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• "From the Sol Systems Manual,[32] unless otherwise noted." Do we need this?

I have always found this VERY useful because it indicates you will be referring to it a lot. A list of para-ends is not the same implication. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, let me thank you for taking on the task of writing this article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro

Oppose on 1c (specifically WP:V): I looked at the lead, which revealed a few minor issues to begin with, but the first section of the main body threw up quite a few more, which worry me a little. Therefore I am opposing until this is clarified a little (there is probably a simple explanation, but I think it needs clearing up, hence the oppose).

Lead: Parts of this are a little difficult to follow, but this is easy enough to fix with a link or two. Sarastro (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• The opening paragraph of the lead is somewhat impenetrable to me as I have no background in computing. This would be less of an issue if we had some slightly better links: could we link backplane, I/O drive and boot code?

All addressed except I/O, which is explained in the 3P+S link.

• ”It also included swappable ROMs with boot code that allowed it to start up running a selection of programs”: Perhaps a little redundancy here. Could we just have “Swappable ROMs with boot code allowed a selection of programs to run on start up.” Also, we could perhaps link start up here.

Reworded.

• ”a motherboard known as the Sol-PC which was also available as free schematics”: I’m not entirely clear what this means. I know the lead is a summary, but am I right in thinking this means you could simply build your own for free if you were so inclined?

Correct.

• Should the price be mentioned in the lead?

Indeed, added.

• ”By that time, the "1977 trinity" -the Apple II, Commodore PET and TRS-80- had begun to take over the market, and a series of failed new product introductions drove Processor Technology into bankruptcy”: We are using a hyphen to break up the sentence when it should be a pair of emdashes.

Fixed, although you should feel free to do this yourself.

• ”Felsenstein would later develop the successful Osborne 1 computer, using much the same underlying design in a portable format”: Why not simply “Felsenstein later developed…”? Sarastro (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Reworded.

Tom Swift Terminal: Reading the first section, I checked a source to clarify something with a view to rephrasing it, but I could not find the information in the source. I then checked a few more references and I could not find the information in those sources either. I imagine that there is a simple explanation: either I am overlooking something in the source, the wrong page was given in the reference or a different edition was used to the one linked in the reference. However, as this is a sourcing issue, it does need clarification. It may also be worth the nominator and maybe other reviewers checking some of the other references to make sure they support the text given. If I am overlooking something, it may be worth quoting the parts of the source that support our text. I am more than happy to strike the oppose if this can be easily cleared up, or if I have misunderstood something. Sarastro (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Incidentally, at the start of the History section, we need to introduce Felsenstein as we only do so in the lead.

Added.

• The first couple of sentences are a little difficult to understand. It was trying to understand these first sentences that led me to check the sources.

• ”The cost of running the system was untenable; the terminal cost $1,500 (their first example was donated), the modem another $300, and the mainframe time would normally be dollars a minute.”: Using “cost” twice in close succession here. I’m not clear what “their first example was donated” means here: it was donated to them (by who, and why?) or they donated it to someone else? Nor do I understand what “the mainframe time would normally be dollars a minute” means.

Let's unpack this...

The cost of a Model 33 is referenced just below in the section about the Altair.

Added the donator, although I don't think that really clarifies anything.

Time-sharing systems of the era billed in terms of CPU time, typically minutes. It cost a lot. Added and reffed.

• I'll be honest, it concerns me that this was not referenced before. However, it reads more clearly now. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• ”Even the reams of paper output from the terminal were too expensive to be practical”: What paper output? Again, this is unclear to the general reader… why did the system need paper to operate?

Teletype Model 33's are teletype printers. The link to the Model 33 should do here.

• Hmm, I'm not sure I agree. For an FA, the reader should not have to follow links to understand what something means. I had no idea that it was a printer, nor will, I imagine, the majority of readers. However, I'm not going to insist on a change here. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think we could do with some dates in the first paragraph of history.

Added.

• The first four sentences of “Tom Swift Terminal” are cited to Levy p 148, which is viewable for me online via the link. I cannot find any of the information cited.

I can see all of this information in Google Books between page 145 and 148. Can you see this section? I was using a PDF version lacking page numbers (one of the major reasons I believe ebooks are a plague) so I had to do my best by cross-referencing.

• OK, this is a big problem. The reference says p 148, now you are saying it's somewhere between p 145 and 148. This fails WP:V. I'm inclined to agree with you about ebooks, but that doesn't mean that WP:V doesn't apply. I'm not sure what you were using, but even some kind of ebook reference such as Kindle use would be preferable to giving what is effectively the wrong page number. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The page numbers appear to all be correct.

• ”The replacement of the Model 33 with a Hazeltine glass terminal helped, but it required constant repairs”: The reference checks out about requiring constant repairs, but the reasons given in the source for switching are not related to costs but to unreliability.

Yes. Sorry, have to go, back later. Maury Markowitz (talk)

• I notice this has not been changed yet. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• ”Since 1973, Felsenstein had been looking for ways to lower the cost”: I’m probably overlooking it, so could someone show me where the source supports this?

• Just flagging this in case you missed it. 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This is mentioned again below.

• Reference 6 covers most of the second paragraph of “Tom Swift Terminal”. But…

• Article: “When he saw Don Lancaster's TV Typewriter on the cover of the September 1973 Popular Electronics…”
• Source: Yes, he saw the January 1975 issue cited, but here it says that the picture was a design by Ed Roberts, not Don Lancaster.

I cannot find any statement like that. Ed Roberts was the designer of the Altair, two years later. This is definitely not in ref 6, where are you seeing this?

• The version I reviewed was this version. At the time, this statement was referenced to Levy 2010, p. 156, on which the only mention of Popular Electronics is about Ed Roberts; looking again, I see that it was actually from 1975 not 1973. However, it did not support the text. The new reference supports the text given. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Article: “a 300 bits per second acoustic coupler that was 1⁄3 the cost of commercial models”
• I can’t find this in the source cited.

Which part, the 300 or the cost? I think you mean the cost, and that's in there, "And it finally went on the market in ’76 or ’77, and it knocked modem prices down from $350 to $100."

• The version I reviewed was this version. At the time, this statement was referenced to Levy 2010, p. 156, which does not contain any of this information. The new version is referenced to Felsenstein 2008, p. 13, which STILL does not contain the cited information. A search reveals this is on p. 17. It should not be the job of a reviewer to correct citations. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Article: “he began adapting its circuitry as the basis for a design he called the Tom Swift Terminal”
• In the pages cited, he saw the magazine cover after he had come up with his ideas.

I am reading a paragraph that starts "In 1973, in September '73, the TV typewriter burst upon the scene" and ends "And that was the basics of the design of the Tom Swift terminal,". Can you be more specific - is the problem in the text in the Sol article or the source?

• The version I reviewed was this version. At the time, this statement was referenced to Levy 2010, p. 156, on which the only mention of Popular Electronics comes after he had come up with his ideas. The current version is referenced to to Felsenstein 2008, p. 13, which STILL does not contain the cited information. A search reveals that it is on p. 14.

• Article: “The terminal was deliberately designed to allow it to be easily repaired. Combined with the Pennywhistle, users would have a cost-effective way to access Community Memory.”
• I can’t find this in the source given.

Which part, the easily repaired or the cost effective? The later is mentioned in the paragraph just above the one talking about the TST, he's talking about how much it cost to maintain the Hazeltine and that it wasn't worth it.

• I cannot find that on the cited page. Possibly I'm not familiar enough with the topic to understand the reference, so could you please quote directly the text that supports our article? Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"when I heard about this I said, "This maintenance contract isn't worth what we are paying.""

• This does not support anything about repairing, or any comparison to the Pennywhistle, nor any indication that it would be more effective for users rather than the people running it. Also, this is not in the Levy reference to which the sentence is currently cited, but to Felsenstein 2008. Sarastro (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• A search of the book for “Don Lancaster” gives a reference to him designing a “TV typewriter” on page 155, but that page does not support any of the other information cited to reference 6.

Ahhh, there is a single missing ref in the middle. Added.

I'm stopping there for now. Assuming this can be clarified, I will strike my oppose. Sarastro (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a superb review BTW. In-depth and from someone "outside the box". It's too easy to write things based on prior knowledge, you don't even see you're doing it, so this sort of second-glance is invaluable for future readers. Example: I recently referred to Andre Norton as "that guy". Please keep going! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: I'm still finding errors in the citations, as noted above. I notice that the nominator has rejigged the references since my review, hence my link to the version I reviewed which had the failed verifications. Also, we may be introducing new errors by adding citations mid-sentence. For example, we now have a reference in the middle of the first paragraph of Tom Swift Terminal to The Economics of Computers. As written, this reference is supporting the information about Felsenstein at the start of the paragraph, the Teletype Model 33, and the cost of the system in 1973. This is obviously not the case, so this information needs to correct reference. I'm afraid I'm unconvinced that this meets Criterion 1c as I am finding so many problems with verification. It may only be a page or two out, but this is not acceptable at FA level. And the version that I first reviewed had references that simply did not support the text. Also, to be blunt, an article should not be reaching FAC needing this kind of work doing. I am concerned at finding so many verification issues within just two paragraphs; I haven't looked at the rest of the article, but I am worried that this is replicated throughout the article. I am afraid my oppose stands. I will not revisit unless I have some reassurance that the nominator and at least one other reviewer have checked the rest of the article for verification. Because, to be honest, finding even one more issue would leave me inclined to suggest that this should be withdrawn and worked on away from FAC. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Note the last part of 1c, "...are supported by inline citations where appropriate". We appear to have different definitions of appropriate, as the level of detail you are expressing, to me, borders on overkill, but I'm aware opinions differ on this. All of the items (save one) are in the references provided, so the question is whether 1c is violated by having generalist citations like the style I use? I guess we'll need another opinion on this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

For reference I looked over your last FA. It has dramatically more inlines than I have ever used, so that clarifies the level you are looking for. Seeing as the article is not at that level, perhaps we can put a pin in the cite issue for a moment... would you mind continuing looking over the content for additional notes on content and gr? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've never heard that argument before at FAC, and I think it's a long time since it would have been widely used in response to WP:V concerns. I've been around FAC a very long time now, and unless I've missed something enormous, every article has had this level of reference, and every source reviewer has required it. I may be very wrong, but if you raised this at WT:FAC, I think you'd be in a definite minority. However, we may possibly be talking at cross-purposes here. I am not requiring a cite at the end of every sentence. But, for example, those references which are to the wrong page (e.g. where we are referencing p 13 and the information is on p 17) are easily fixed by changing the citation to pp 13-17 where the information is on a range of pages. Also, there is nothing wrong with moving two or three citations to the end of a paragraph if they cover all the information in that paragraph. My only caveat would be that it should be easy for a reviewer (or anyone else) to find the facts from the text in a cited source; that is my primary concern here, that it is NOT easy to find. Regarding "put a pin in it", I'm afraid there is little point for me to review prose etc until the sourcing is sorted. I'm going to step back now and see what other reviewers think, but my oppose (which I've clarified is on 1c) stands for now. Sarastro (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. But as my main purpose in FAC is to improve the article, are you sure I can't get you to continue reading it? I found your notes on prose useful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem with that is that, until the sourcing is settled one way or the other, it's a shifting sands kind of situation. There's no point polishing prose if the actual content could be changed over sourcing. I've no objection to doing so at some point, but not before any sourcing issues are finalised. Sarastro (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose from Ealdgyth

• Note f: "Here too the stories vary somewhat; Felsenstein's 2008 interviews state they went to the first meeting together, while his 1977 article states he did not attend until the second meeting in March. However, the first meeting of the club was in March," is cited to this Wired article. But noting in the Wired article supports the information it is cited to. There is no mention of Marsh or Felsenstein in the Wired article.
• Note h: " In contrast, the Hazeltine 2000 terminal sold for $2,995, and the "low-cost" 1500 series, introduced in 1977, started at $1,125." is cited to this article. While it supports most of hte infromation, the "low-cost" bits are not supported in the article.
• Sales section: "The Sol was initially offered in three versions. The base motherboard was offered as the Sol-PC, available as a kit for $575, or fully assembled and tested for $745. The Sol-10 added a case, keyboard and power supply, was $895 in kit form and $1,295 assembled. Finally the Sol-20 added a keyboard with numeric keypad, and a larger power supply to feed the five expansion slots and a fan to cool them, for $995 as a kit or $1,495 assembled. Advertising of the time referred to the Sol-20 as "The first complete small computer under $1,000"." is all cited to this ad from Processor Technology. Much of that information isn't supported by the ad, and the ad is a poor choice for a source, as it's not a independent source. The ad mentions nothing about the Sol-10 or the Sol-PC.
• Tom Swift Terminal section: "Lee Felsenstein was one of the operators of Community Memory, the first public bulletin board system. Community Memory opened in 1973, running on a SDS 940 mainframe that was accessed through a Teletype Model 33, essentially a computer printer and keyboard, in a record store in Berkeley, California. The cost of running the system was untenable; the teletype normally cost $1,500 (their first example was donated from Tymeshare as junk), the modem another $300, and time on the SDS was expensive – in 1968 Tymshare charged $13 per hour (equivalent to $96 in 2019)" is sourced to this page ... but the only thing that page supports is the "in 1968 Tymshare charged $13 per hour" ... none of hte rest of it is supported by the source given.
• Software section: "CONSOL provided a simple terminal emulator function, along with a small number of additional commands to load and run programs from tape using TLOAD. SOLOS added names to the files on the cassette, the TSAVE command for saving data to the tape into a named file, and TCAT to print out the details of a named program. TXEC loaded and executed a named program in one step. SOLED included block-mode editing, used on some mainframe systems, but it is not clear if this was actually available." is sourced to this webpage, which basically appears to be a personal website. I'm not seeing any sign that this guy is an expert, so what makes it a reliable source? And a good bit of this isn't actually supported by the webpage - "TLOAD" most of the commands for the SOLOS, and most of the information given about SOLED.
• Frankly, having checked all the online sources, I'm afraid I must strongly oppose. The whole article needs a top to bottom source integrity check against the sources. Given the number of issues with the online sources, it is going to be a long tedious chore to check all the offline sources against the text in the article. It really needs to be withdrawn and worked on away from FAC, with someone who is capable of doing a very detailed check against the sources and who has access to them. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (Note I plan to claim WikiCup points for this FAC review) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

The spotchecks by Sarastro and Ealdgyth suggest this should be closed and improved on outside FAC; it might be good if one or both of them can be involved in some re-checks before another run at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.