Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apple Computer/archive1

Apple Computer
Very well written an informative. A very good timeline, and lots of great external links for further reading. - Mike  (talk)  22:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC) That is probably not all of them :(. In short, I'd love to see this featured, but it isn't ready yet. RN 23:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Object I'm working at the moment, but I've got to object to this since I've worked quite a bit on this
 * 1) For starters the history section is nearly completely unreferenced (and I've called for some as well).
 * 2) Criticism section has legitamate fact tags everywhere.
 * 3) Lots of various POV issues mostly due to writing flair.
 * 4) Corporate affairs is listy.
 * 5) Little history of its stock (EDIT: This appears to be in the daughter article, although some of that also appears unreferenced... *sigh*)
 * 6) Corporate culture has some rather dubious claims (and more fact tags)
 * 7) Fair-use rationales needed for some images

A lot of the prose also suffers from a lack of coherence in places; the whole article needs a thorough scrubbing to tighten up the wording. The information presented is quite good, and has potential to be an FA, but not now. Warrens 23:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Object:
 * Waaayyyy too mach uncited information through the article; 20+ [citation needed]s is unacceptable. Subjective, opinionated statements like "Apple was the first company to demonstrate that suits and hierarchy were not only unnecessary to success, they might actually be a hindrance to innovation" do not belong in any Wikipedia article, much less a Featured Article.
 * The lead section needs some serious love. It's too short.  It doesn't reflect what the rest of the article covers (ample time for history, software, criticism, litigation).  And does it need to include the street address of the corporate headquarters?  It it really that important?  Compare with Microsoft's lead section, which does a good job of summarising all the important points and offers the reader a concise overview of the company.
 * The history sections seem to miss out on 1992 and 1993 entirely. The fact that the section covering 2006 is as long as the entirety of the 1998 - 2005 section is a bit unusual.
 * The pictures through the history section are odd; two picturs of Apple's campus, but none of the company's most significant products? As an absolute minimum there should be a picture of the original Apple.
 * There are some redlinks which need resolution.
 * Does a non-Unicode character that doesn't render properly on non-Macintosh computers belong in a Featured Article? Probably not... Wikipedia has a global audience.
 * There are multiple links to Wikipedia sister projects.
 * Object for reasons stated above. I myself have looked at the article. (Wikimachine 01:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC))


 * This is a premature nomination, and a great pity. Mjg, why not withdraw it and garner the Mac community to fix it before resubmitting? I don't think it will pass this time. Tony 08:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong object for all the reasons above. Fix up the citation issues then nominate again. Until then, remove this nomination and find sources.


 * Object per above. Premature. (At least we know what we have to do to change this situation.)--HereToHelp 00:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)