Wikipedia:Peer review/Personal computer/archive1

Personal computer
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what parts are still missing and what can be done/written better. General opinions also welcome.

Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: An interesting read - I am not a PC expert, but I could only think of one topic to add (disposal, see below) although I do think the level at which most of the article is written could be changed. Here are some suggestions for improvement: Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the tag at the top - this needs many more references cited for verifiablilty. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Make sure the lead is an accurate summary of the whole article and that it contains nothing that is not also in the body of the article - see WP:LEAD
 * Parts of the article are written in a very broad and general style (for example the History section does not mention a single manufacturer and is very vague on dates), while others are extremely specific (for example Ultra-Mobile PC). I think that the article should be somewhere in the middle in tone, i.e. give enough specifics to be interesting while not getting bogged down in tons of specific details.
 * Surely there is a better actual photograph for the lead image?
 * Perhaps History could give some of the stats and capabilities of the early computers to show how things have evolved from very expensive systems with monochrome monitors, text only displays, no mouse and the large floppy disk to today's PC.
 * Always useful in a technical article to provide context for the reader (see WP:PCR) and to avoid or explain jargon. This is especially true in the more detailed sections, i.e. The server edition, Mac OS X Server, is architecturally very similar to its desktop counterpart... - see WP:JARGON
 * The article is very list-y in places, such as Hardware and Other components and these should be put into prose if possible.
 * I like the Lifetime section (although it is completely unreferenced). Perhaps the problems of disposing of obsolete PCs could be mentioned here too.
 * Refs might benefit from use of cite web or other cite templates and do need to be consistent. Internet refs should all give url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed.