Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Commodore 64/archive1

Commodore 64
I think this is very well-written and extensive without being overly drawn out. Passes featured criteria in my view. --DanielNuyu 20:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is a great article, and obviously a huge amount of work has gone into it. I would suggest saying something about it in relation to the other machines that it was competing with in that era (TRS-80 and Apple II). Although the technical info is clearly linked to, it would help to have some references for the statements about the history. Not sure about the legality of the screenshots of proprietary software, although it's hard to imagine anybody really objecting when it comes to stuff this old.--Bcrowell 23:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. A really interesting article (C64s were before my time, and this is a great read for someone who's first PC ran on Windows 95!), and as long as there are no problems with the screenshots this will hopefully pass FA easily. Well done to those who wrote the article. Harro5 04:44, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * There are computer users that never used a C64?! The first computer I used... Ok I won't finish that. This makes me feel old, and I'm not that old. (Not that there's anything wrong with being old :) I'll give some useful comments when I have a chance to read the whole article. - Taxman Talk 23:47, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * So how old are you? 30? 40? :)


 * Support. I'm not really a computer geek, and this is way to old for me, but it's well-written and interesting. --Scimitar 19:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. This informative and enjoyable article does not cite sources for its many assertions.  I recognise that the ==References== section probably lists all the sources but I seek closer links between source and text. Like Bcrowell, I would also like to see more comparative information for the C64's competitors. Less significantly, in the ===C64 successors and the 64C=== section, did the external design of the 64C really 'reflect "modernism"'? Was it not simply following contemporary workstation design trends? --Theo  (Talk) 23:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the point about the 64C, and a new change reflects your suggestion. As for the inline citations, I am not one of the original authors and cannot contribute in that vein; in my opinion, however, the article is concise and modular enough to logically tie certain pieces of information to specific references as listed. --DanielNuyu 22:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - I am old enough to remember these (a few friends had one; I had a Sinclair Spectrum) and this article looks fine to me. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Object - The article is great, but it does not talk about the SX-64 at all. If derivatives like the C64GS and the C64DTV are described in lenght, there should be a section about the SX64, too. (Preferably with a picture, if possible) -- Marcika 13:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - (Sort of a self-vote, Since I'm a regular contributor to the C64 article.) I've added the suggestions above, (namely C64 competitors, SX-64) which should hopefully address most of the concerns about the article. By the way, you don't have to be that old to have used a C64... My first computer was a Commodore VIC-20 and that is older than the C64 and I'm only 26! ADSR6581 13:12, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to contribute any inline citations in order to alleviate the last part of Theo's objection? --DanielNuyu 22:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I will require more specific information about the assertions he is concerned about. ADSR6581 22:47, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support- I read the artical over. I believe it has what is needed for it to be a featured artical.  --ZeWrestler 14:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Conditional support - though I love the aside (really!), we still need a source for the following: "(In fact, one webmaster of a Commodore 64 games museum website mentioned that to this day, he does not know how the game Clystron's title screen managed to display 4 different colours on the same 8×8 pixel block without halving the horizontal resolution.)" - Ta bu shi da yu 09:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I have removed the reference, as I could not find the source. It was submitted by someone without a username (see here ).ADSR6581 11:47, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Mostly for previously-stated reasons.  Sahasrahla 19:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)