Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/PowerBook 100


 * 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 04:08, 9 June 2008.

PowerBook 100
Self-nominator - Recently rewrote this from scratch. Good prose, fully referenced. Copyedits (some major, some minor) made by users Finetooth, La Pianista, AnnaFrance, GrahamColm and Laser brain. Archived peer review here. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 07:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is something wrong in ref 9 Wacky. --Efe (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Thank you for noticing it. Fixed. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 12:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome. --Efe (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments


 * Support, very well done. I provided feedback during peer review and on a fresh read-through did not find any other issues. -- Laser brain   (talk)  16:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support indeed. Good standard to set for computer-related articles, which have not typically been well-written. Thorough. Just two stylistic things: I'd avoid the "[person's name] decided to [do something]. Think carefully before "[person's name] began to ...". You might consider positioning "however," at the start of sentences. These are partly personal preferences. TONY   (talk)  17:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, and a disclosure from me; I was invited to take a look at this article last week, or the week before, (a week is a long time on Wikipedia), and before the nomination, I made a few, minor, edits. I was, and I  am still impressed with the readability of the article, despite its being about a computer. This is an important contribution to the history of the personal computer, well done Wacky, and I hope that there are no hard feelings between us with regard to our edit conflicts. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 21:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all - your contributions are valuable and were most welcomed. Thanks again for your help. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 21:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, this article's actually been on my TODO list for a while; seems you beat me to improving it. ;-) Anyhow, congratulations with another very good Macintosh-related article - the prose is top quality and the references are all solid. I'll read through it again tomorrow but I don't think there's much to complain about, apart from what has already been said. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Some of your web links have last access dates, but it would be nice if they all did.
 * I know I'm missing something, but what makes http://www.lunar.com/inside/awards2.html a reliable source?
 * Otherwise sources look good, and all the links checked out with the link checker. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it is reliable if you base it on their client list: http://www.lunar.com/portfolio/clients.html Lunar Design have worked for some of the best-known brands in the world. Its also the only source I could find for those specific design awards the PB100 received. I will add access dates where needed. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 07:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which current refs are missing access dates? I just went through and didn't notice any web refs without one. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 07:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Current ref 10 "Said, Carolyn" is the one I see now. I THINK there were more earlier, but I've slept since then... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 16:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm leaving the bit about the awards site out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. I'm on the fence about it. (I'm unwatching the FAC, btw) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment . It all looks pretty good - if you'll allow me to nitpick:
 * "It did not have a built-in floppy disk drive but was noted for its unique compact design that placed a trackball pointing device in front of the keyboard for ease of use." - it's not a contradiction so "but" shouldn't be used, but I think simply mentioning that it doesn't have a floppy disk drive is a bit strange - you should probably attach some importance to the statement. And although you do mention the trackball later on, you don't show that it was "noted".
 * Fixed. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Apple announced its highest figures yet" - slightly unclear what you're referring to; was it their revenue which was the highest yet? I also don't like using "the highest" twice in a sentence, although it's hard to get around.
 * If you read the whole sentence, it does say "$7.1 billion in revenues" — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Double additive at the end of the first sentence with "in addition" and then "also" which could probably be avoided.
 * Is there even a such thing as a "double additive"? Why is this a problem exactly? — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, meant to say first section not sentence. And I just thought it was slightly weak to have two sentences in a row which were effectively "also"s - maybe just a personal thing. Changed it myself now anyway. Trebor (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In "Design", the sentence beginning "The 100, however," has too many subclauses; I find it very hard to follow the meaning.
 * Fixed. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If possible, some expansion on its legacy would be good. The previous reviews quoted don't explain why it's winning all these awards for being the greatest gadget - it comes as somewhat of a surprise. If there's been a modern review of it - why it was good, what influence it has had (if any) - that might be good to include.
 * I'm not sure what else would be said. The awards are for its design (hence, 'design awards'), which is sufficiently explained in the 'Design' section. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was more curious about the "greatest gadget of all time" (or tenth-greatest) accolade. It could just be me, but the rest of the article didn't seem to suggest it was that "good" (for want of a better word). The BBC link says it was chosen because it "helped define the layout of all future notebook PCs" - if that's true, I think more information on its legacy should be included. Trebor (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * However, finding reliable sources for that type of information would prove difficult. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 10:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Aside from those pieces I thought it was a very well done article - informative, easy-to-read and well-referenced. Trebor (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to support. Trebor (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I might be missing it, but would it be feasible to have a little bit of a closing talking about the influence the 100 had on the next line of powerbooks, if any? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The subsequent models of similar form factor were the PowerBook Duo series, which improved upon the 100's portability. I guess you could say Apple used the 100 as the basis for the Duo's design. However, I don't have any sources to back this up kind of statement. The 100's successors are mentioned at the end of the lead, which I think is sufficient. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 16:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Excellent article. It brought tears to my eyes, since it was my first laptop, and I had convinced my employer at the time to buy it for me.  I have one really minor concern, for which I have no answer.  It mentions Apple's stock prices.  Usually, in the financial press, stock prices are normalized by stock splits.  We really should identify the price as being at the time.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.