Wikipedia:Peer review/Macintosh Classic/archive1

===Macintosh Classic===

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it up to GA standards. At the moment, it's very short - but I'd like some feedback on what could be added.

Thanks, Wackymacs (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Macintosh Classic/archive1.

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting but very short article - needs to be expanded to have a hope of GA, let alone FA. Here are some ideas for improvement: Sorry not to have more ideas - this is so short there is not much else to say. Refs and images look fine. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead needs to be expanded to summarize the article per WP:LEAD. Nothing should be solely in the lead.
 * Done. — Wackymacs (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * History - any idea how many units were produced / sold? Why did they stop production (assume for the next model)? What limitations were there in this model that led to the development of the next one?
 * No info available on sales/production figures I'm afraid. Not sure where to put limitations (I think a "Limitations" section would be too short on its own) — Wackymacs (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Could limitations be put in the history section? Because of these, it was discontinued in X and the successor had these changes / innovations. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Any sort of critical reception information - what did MacWeek or MacWorld (if it existed then) think of it?
 * I added some info from a review from Home Office Computing magazine. I don't think MacWEEK did reviews, but I'll try find something from Macworld. - Wackymacs (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A model article is useful for ideas, etc. I note MacBook is GA.
 * Thanks for the help. I've added a Design section and lots more info (and another photo). — Wackymacs (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize - I had trouble trying to think of what to add next! Thanks for your help so far. — Wackymacs (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I have added review info from PC User, PC Week and MacWEEK. — Wackymacs (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks much better Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Laser brain's comments
 * "The similarity of this model to its predecessors limited innovation." The similarity didn't limit innovation, it was a result of the lack of innovation, right? Maybe say "Due to limited innovation, this model was similar to its predecessors."
 * "The low-end model Classic had 1 MB memory..." Do you mean "Classic model"?
 * I removed some superfluous commas from the lead.
 * The lead seems overly devoted to specs and price. You might achieve better balance by mentioning more of the history or reception.
 * You mention that educators liked this model because of the low price. Were they given a discounted price from what you mention in the lead?  I recall reading that schools got deeply discounted Macs. Worth researching and mentioning in the lead.
 * "The Classic was in part popular because of its low price, which also contributed to its popularity in the education sector." This seems clumsy. I can't think of a way to reword it right now, but maybe you can give it a go.
 * "The 9-inch display was criticized because a full page would not fit at full size." No need to use passive voice because you are still talking about Schafer, I believe. I think you need to globalize this sentence a bit.  A "full page" does not mean the same thing to everyone.  To me it is 8.5 by 11 inches, but other countries use different standards of letter-sized paper.
 * I think you should break off the last paragraph of the History section and make a "Reception" section. Maybe it's not long enough, but the critical reviews are not really "History".
 * The first sentence in the Features section is verbatim from the lead, which doesn't read well. I would reword that in the lead.
 * "A software bundle called Smartbundle was sold at some dealerships with the Classic." Passive voice obscures the subject.
 * I think you might have a comprehensiveness issue due to the lack of Production information. You mention where they were manufactured but not much else.  More research might be needed to dig up additional journal articles.  -- Laser brain   (talk)  03:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Useful feedback, thanks. There really isn't a lot of information available on the Classic, since it was simply an upgraded Mac Plus/SE made cheaper as a budget model. I have been using Thomson Gale Infotrac and EBSOhost to find information so far, which are the largest reference databases I have access to. However...I could probably add a section on Manufacturing - but it would be more specific to compact Macintoshes as a whole, since they all used a similar manufacturing process. What do you think? — Wackymacs (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I imagine it must be quite a challenge to dig up information here. You might have to go to a local Mac users' group meeting and find some crusty old Mac guy who saved all the issues of Mac World in his cellar. :)  I don't think you need a Manufacturing section based on what you've said, though. -- Laser brain   (talk)  19:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

 comments:

I've done a some minor things that were, to me, too trifling to list here. Dibs? :-) (Note: Half of this peer review I completed on my computer and saved before continuing it today, so it may repeat some of Laser brain's comments.)

Hope this was helpful! :-) La  Pianista!  17:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is just my taste, but "The Macintosh Classic (code-named XO) was a personal computer manufactured by Apple Computer and introduced in October 1990." would sound better as "The Macintosh Classic (code-named XO), introduced in October 1990, was a personal computer manufactured by Apple Inc." (noticed I used "Inc." instead of repeating "computer")
 * Two problems I have with this: The use of extra commas in your suggested re-word are superfluous, and I use 'Apple Computer' for the reason that was the company's name when the Classic was introduced. — Wackymacs (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Demand for another Compact Macintosh, such as the popular Macintosh Plus and the SE, spurred the introduction of the Classic." Word choice is a little questionable here for me. Maybe "The Classic was designed in accordance with demands for another Compact Macintosh, such as the popular Macintosh Plus."
 * "The Classic used the same 9-inch Monochrome CRT display, 512×342 pixel resolution, and had the same 4 MB memory limit as its predecessors." Parallelism is important. Instead, try "The Classic used the same 9-inch Monochrome CRT display, 512×342 pixel resolution, and 4 MB memory limit as its predecessors."
 * Except, your reword doesn't seem to make full sense. It had a memory limit, it didn't use a memory limit. Correct? — Wackymacs (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right...sorry about that. =) -- La Pianista!  19:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, a little different wording, to add some contrast in the sentences. Original: "The Classic was popular in the education sector because of its low price." Possible replacement: "Due to its low price, the Classic became popular in the education sector."
 * This has already been reworded twice, and nobody can seem to decide on what sounds the best. I think it's all down to personal taste. — Wackymacs (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But whichever method you choose, it can potentially sound better. -- La Pianista!  19:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "It was up to 25% faster than the Plus, and used an Apple SuperDrive 3.5" floppy disk drive as standard." See this discussion from the Language ref desk. You should either remove the comma or add an "it" after "and."
 * "The Classic was superseded by the Macintosh Classic II in 1991, and was discontinued on September 14, 1992." Same issue as directly above.
 * Try not to repeat "The Classic was popular in the education sector in part because of its low price." Feature it in the body; it has no purpose in the introduction because it serves as no adequate summary.
 * I think it would be better to change $1,000 and other prices numbers into US $1,000. (notice that US $ is linked).
 * I believe that would not be in accordance with MOS guidelines. The first occurrence is linked and has US$ in front of the figure, the rest are not (because they don't need to be). — Wackymacs (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that all dollar amounts be changed to US $. Of course, only the first is linked. -- La Pianista!  19:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The first few sentences under "Design" all start with "The Classic" or "The Macintosh Classic." Try rephrasing the sentences for variance.
 * "Liza Schafer of Home Office Computing praised the Classic's ease of use and price. The 9-inch display was criticized because a full U.S. letter page (8½ × 11 inches) would not fit at full size." Maybe some transition between the positive and the negative would make it run more smoothly.
 * I'll look into your other suggestions, and might get an external copy-editor to take a look at the article before I submit to WP:GA. — Wackymacs (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck then! The more opinions on an article, the better. And sorry if my signature disturbs the whole page here...I'm trying to fix it. -- La Pianista!  19:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)