Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macintosh Classic

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 03:35, 30 May 2008 [1].

Macintosh Classic edit

Self-nominator. I re-wrote most of this recently, and initiated a successful peer review and a couple copy-edits. Fully referenced, good prose. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation and formatting issues resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
Probably wouldn't hurt to find a source for the last sentence in the second paragraph of the Design section, "The Classic design was used...".

Sources look good. Links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick comments. Both issues fixed. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't fixed. It's important to use one citation style consistently; just switching templates doesn't sort out the problems. Take this citation, for example:

^ Krey, Michael. "Classic is on backorder", The Business Journal, March 25, 1991, pp. 18.

The Business Journal should be italicized (use the work parameter, not publisher), the date should be linked, to be consistent with other date formatting, and it's not a plural on pages. These kinds of fixes are needed throughout. Also, please close and archive the peer review before coming to FAC (see FAC instructions). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, please review again. Full dates are now linked throughout, and publisher names are italicized using the work parameter instead of publisher. Also, pages changed to page when referring to only a single page. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had another look and fixed several straggles, notes:

(Notice the hanging p. here, with no p. before the page no.): "Macs for the masses", COMPUTE!, April 1991, p. Vol. 13 Issue 4, 26.
(See WP:MOSDATE, there is no comma between month year, and the publisher here, findarticles.com, was missing) Schafer, Liza (April, 1991). Apple Macintosh Classic 2/40 - Hardware Review (pp.2). BNET. Retrieved on May 6, 2008.

I also noticed problems with the WP:MOS#Ellipses, so you might want to work with Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to comb through the article for MoS issues; he's very good at MoS cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ellipses are used once in the article, and are implemented with three unspaced periods. According to the page you linked, that is acceptable: "Three unspaced periods (...). This is the easiest way, and gives a reliable appearance in HTML. Recommended.". — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I add the missing spaces around the ellipses: if there are no other ellipses, that's set, but you should be aware of the WP:MOS#Ellipses guideline for futur work. Put a space on each side of an ellipsis, except at the very start or end of a quotation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The article is really good, and the links checked out fine. Limetolime ^{talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 19:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the prose looks great and I have not found any additional issues. --Laser brain (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Comment, I don't have much to add because I made my comments at the article peer review. I think the article could stand one more run-through by a different copyeditor to spit shine it a bit. --Laser brain (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Another copy-editor made some edits, but I think most of them were not beneficial. Are there any particular sentences which stick out? If not, I think this is not actionable.~~ — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The prose is already very good, but I have consulted AnnaFrance to further 'polish' the prose/quality of writing throughout. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like. Well done, and leaning to support. One question though: are any sales figures available for the Macintosh classic? How well did it perform compared to it's predecessor and successor units? Would be nice to know, if the info is available. Reso lute 20:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was asked at the peer review, and the answer is unfortunately no. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well, Can't ask for what isn't available then. I like that all major points are discussed in such a compact article. Reso lute 21:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To address Laserbrain's concerns, the article has now been copyedited by two editors, User:AnnaFrance and User:Finetooth in addition to original copyedits by User:Leoniana. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Comment~~ - I've done a little copy editing, [2]and [3] please check that I haven't done anything stupid. GrahamColm ^Talk 11:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC) and GrahamColm ^Talk 17:31, 28 May 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.