Wikipedia:Featured article review/Macintosh Classic/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 kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 8:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC) [1].

---

Macintosh Classic

Notified: Wackymacs , WikiProject Computing

Review section

FAR notice was given by Sandy Georgia on 23 January, stating that "This 2008 FA promotion has numerous areas not in compliance with WP:WIAFA, including uncited text, WP:MOS issues, and possible breach of WP:NOTPRICE". Since there have not been efforts to bring the article up to FA criteria, I am nominating it for FAR. buidhe 05:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• Poole 1990 & Carlton 1997 check out fine, backs up content, cleverly paraphrased
• ref 24 (Developer Technical Publications. Apple Computer. 1990) is dead, both urls
• ref 1: "(1999). MacWorld Mac Secrets" checks out fine.

The article relies rather heavily on offline sources (news articles) which I am not able to consult. Eisfbnore ^(会話) 14:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think NOTPRICE is an issue, as the fact that it sold for under $1000 was notable and remarked upon. I didn't spot much that was obviously unreferenced. That said, the article does feel thin given the amount of research and scholarship out there about the Mac in general. It also has a bunch of material pretty much only in the lead that needs to be addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• David, you would know the industry sources here better than I (and I haven't yet revisited closely, my notification is three months old), but the reason I said "possible breach of NOTPRICE" is that I am uncertain which of those sources might be product reviews (versus mainstream sources). NOTPRICE says, "Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention." If someone is going to take on improvements here, they would need to look at that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Some of the direct references are indeed to product reviews, but the context of the subject itself is that it was a commodity personal computer. I think it's innately an important part of its coverage to include the price, especially given its relative historicity in the personal computer line. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• I see ... it's likely then that some of what is sourced to product reviews would also be mentioned in the other mainstream sources-- something to look at should anyone take on improvements here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe could you please update? I am not seeing serious outstanding issues, and think we should have a list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know enough about hardware to know if the article is OK or not. I am not seeing any glaring issues that I can highlight at the moment. (t · c) buidhe 19:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Note to Coords: I tagged the talk page for examination, but I did not nominate to FAR. No one yet has really provided a good reason for the FAR. I suggest that, in the absence of such, a procedural close might be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eisfbnore and David Fuchs: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

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