Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/IMac G3/archive1

IMac G3[edit]

Featured article candidates/IMac G3/archive1

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the mid-to-late 1990s, Apple Computer was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and irrelevance. They were saved by a combination of ruthless cost-cutting by their new interim CEO, Steve Jobs, and a hit product—the iMac G3, which if you lived through the era helped usher in the colorful candy plastics era of consumer products, as well as reshaping the idea of what computers were supposed to look like. This article was reviewed at GAN by DFlhb and I look forward to acting on comments here to make this article on a major product in computer history shine further. Thanks in advance for your time reviewing! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium[edit]

Putting myself down for a review. I intend to take a look at a review in a bit. (by next weekish) Sohom (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but the company still needed new hit products. This probably needs a slightly less optimistic framing
... became the iMac, to be inexpensive and with easy Internet connectivity. "to be inexpensive" seems to be off grammar-wise.
I feel like the Background could do a better job of transitioning into the rest of the article, the last paragraph is a bit stilted and does not do a good job of introducing the next section.
Engineers adapted the abandoned Common Hardware Reference Platform specification to speed development. Is it abandoned now or was it abandoned then?
According to Jon Rubinstein, Jobs had always known about the CD tray. I feel like we are missing something here. Why had he not raised this before according Jon?
The jpeg artifacting of File:IMac_G3_color_carousel.gif is noticeable even at its small size. I'd suggest removing it or replacing it with a GIF with a higher resolution.
How well did iMac G3 do in the traditional office/enterprise computing space that was prevalent during this time? Do RS cover it?
Hiawatha Bray said the iMac was doomed and a severe misstep from Jobs a word or two about why Hiawatha Bray thought the way they did would be nice.
two FireWire ports What is a FireWire port, the article kinda assumes that the reader is familiar but it would be nice to fit a sentence somewhere about what it does. (I guess I'm revealing that I'm Gen Z)
Wikilink VGA
Wikilink CD-ROM in the Release section
Ditto for CD-RW
maintained Apple's position as a leader of the emerging digital audio and video sector. Less optimistic framing, also this isn't directly in the cited source AFAICS?

That's it for me. sohom@enwiki 23:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sohom Datta, thanks for the review. I've tried to address all the above; Bray's comments particularly revolve around the lack of a floppy, so I tried rewording the first mention in the high-level comments and then elaborated later on when discussing the drawbacks. I've reworked the end of the background section to introduce the players a bit and then shift to the specific project, let me know if that works better. The Rubinstein bit gets to the fact that Jobs was mercurial and (as the article talks about somewhat) pretty much would change his mind on a whim. That might be a bit too much going into the weeds, so I'm fine with just simplifying that bit so there's not the back-and-forth and it's a little more straightforward. Only thing I didn't change is the carousel image: as you can see it's not a very lossy GIF at full resolution, the limitation seems to be Mediawiki's thumbnail rendering, and I don't think there's a way of fixing that unfortunately. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The changes look good me. I disagree wrt to the gif, however, that is not worth opposing over. Support sohom@enwiki 03:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Generalissima[edit]

I'm in a productive mood today, let's get going on this.

Lede is uncited, and since there's nothing seemingly contentious here I'd say that hits WP:LEDECITE well.
Well, besides the infobox. That introductory price ($1,299) is neither referenced elsewhere in the article or cited for that matter. The price points of later models of the machine are given, but not the first. Should be pretty easy to fix this, however.
Everything in all body sections is cited. I don't see any potentially controversial or contentious claims that are uncited. Subjective claims are properly attributed.
Citation section is properly organized and titled.
Everything with pages has page numbers. The bibliography is also well formatted, and works are cited consistently with ISBNs and ISSNs as applicable.
Good mix of all sorts of sources here. I was a bit worried about Segall 2013 but it seems to only be used in an about-self context or for direct quotes so I think that's good here. I commend you on digging through 1990s and early 2000s computer magazines for a while; they have certainly been used well.

All in all, I think citing that price figure is the only thing left to do. Cheers. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Generalissima, thanks for looking. I went ahead and removed the price. The article covers the rough price range (and the more germane point it was cheaper) in the development, and then the lower base prices are discussed in the review, so I don't think you need the exact one (and doesn't seem to have coverage that makes the price so important it should be in the infobox.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support for source review. Good job with this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]