Wikipedia

Talk:IMac G3/GA1

< Talk:IMac G3
Latest comment: 1 year ago by DFlhb in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago35 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: DFlhb (talk · contribs) 21:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is my first GA review, so I'll look for a mentor to make sure I'm not making any mistakes. Already read through the article once, no obvious problems. Will start with a first-pass read-through, checking that every citation properly supports each claim.

Hey DFlhb, thanks for taking on the review. If you want to check anything based on the print sources, I can send you some copies; the Macworlds and the like are on Archive.org as well but I don't include them in the references themselves since they're likely on Archive.org without copyright holder permission. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 02:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
No trouble so far. My archive.org jiu-jitsu isn't letting me down! DFlhb (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Summary

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:  
    C. It contains no original research:  
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

First-pass review

edit
Note: I propose alternative citations in places where I identify issues; but please feel free to pick other citations if you think they're better
  • Lead:
    •  Y the company's fastest-selling computer in history — unclear; maybe restate as either "fastest-selling computer in Apple's history" (current citation) or "fastest-selling computer in history" (Press & Cooper 2017). Also, has it been topped since?
      • I haven't found a lot of good corroboration for "fastest-selling computer in history" (and I imagine a lot would get into the weeds of what you count as a discrete computer versus a lineup or family, etc.) so I've adjusted it to hopefully make it clearer it's Apple's fastest-selling. As to whether it remains that way, unfortunately there's not really any way of knowing—Apple doesn't break out individual models or give unit sales anymore, and hasn't even given total Mac sales for years at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
        • Cool; I'll be doing the second-pass review this weekend at the latest (maybe earlier if I have time). It might turn up nothing, or maybe I missed something minor. Nicely done overall! DFlhb (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Misc:
    • Copyedit:
      •  Y last sentence of the penultimate §Release paragraph likely belongs in the next paragraph for clarity;
      •  Y reduced the company's product offerings and organizational division — consider "simplified its organizational chart", or some clearer wording. The reduced product offering phrase is also redundant with the "winnowing down" phrase in the after-next sentence;
      •  Y was not original among can sound value-laden; consider "was not a first for Apple" or similar;
      •  Y We keep repeating "more RAM, larger hard drive, faster processor" all over that section; what do you think of mentioning the exact hard drive size/MHz/RAM size/graphics chipset? On the one hand, it may be excessive, but on the other hand it would avoid redundancy, make things clearer, and might even make some younger readers smirk at how bad those things were! This could meet both parts of The inclusion of details and minor aspects can contribute to good writing, but such details should not overwhelm the article (from WP:GACN). IMO, the level of detail in the revision history of this revision wasn't excessive, and helped clarity.
      •  Y Optional support for Wi-Fi (AirPort) on 2nd gen models should likely be mentioned too;
      •  Y What do you think of including prices for entry-level models: the $999 October '99 iMac, and the $799 July '00 iMac? (from the existing citation) Seems encyclopedically relevant, even under WP:NOTPRICES; they're well-covered by secondary sources, and relevant to the product's (and Apple's) market positioning. This should probably just apply to the lowest-end models, so the article doesn't sound stiff;
    • Accuracy:
      •  Yunsupported by any third-party peripheral -> wouldn't "third-party Mac peripheral" be a more accurate paraphrase of that source? Also, it seems Einstein (!) contradicts this;
      •  Y the web version of the Levy Newsweek article doesn't support the golden ticket or radio claims; but I don't have access to the print version. Other web articles claim the golden tickets were a failed idea, illegal under California law for requiring a purchase to enter a giveaway;
        • The aforementioned web article is one from months earlier, not the cited source. As to whether the giveaway actually happened, the Segall reference is to the millionth Mac, and specifically mentions a single ticket. Levy could have been wrong and the idea was nixed, but the number, timing (Levy is mentioning it as for the original iMac's launch, not in celebration of the one millionth Mac), and Willy Wonka details being exclusive to Segall's make me think they're referring to different ideas. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • §Release:
    •  Y Since people are now so used to Apple keeping previous product generations around (iPhone, iPad, Intel Mac mini, Touch Bar MacBok Pro, M1 MacBook Air), it might be useful to clarify that all sets of new models were accompanied by the discontinuation of the previous ones; that can either be clarified by slight copyedits in §Release, or in the Specs table by adding a Discontinued row;
  • §Reception:
    •  Y Andrew Gore: I couldn't find anything about empty talk or the Think Different campaign. Maybe I just missed it! If not, perhaps highlight "destined to be a hit" instead?
    •  Y Tech enthusiasts and current Mac users were often negative — this is partially supported by SixColors (I don't think "often" is) but it's opposed by Kahney p.133, who says media and tech reviewers were the negative ones, but "Apple's fan base was pumped". Both of these citations are already in.
  • §Legacy:
    • Comprehensiveness:
      •  Y Consider mentioning the "iMac to Go" ad campaign for the clamshell iBook G3, and the fact that the iBook was largely inspired by the iMac's design; that was a significant part of the iBook's overall marketing;
  • §Specifications:
    • Clarity:
      •  Y For iMac (Summer 2001), "Mac OS 9.1 and Mac OS X 10.0.4", which one was preinstalled, and which one was given on a disc? I don't understand if Breen (Dec 2001) means one or the other. If you find out, I'd add a footnote to clarify;
    • Sourcing:
      •  Y The weights, graphics chips, presence of audio input, and hard drive RPMs are not supported by the Apple specs sheets for several models; recommend EveryMac be used, since it would be a significant ommission not to mention graphics. EveryMac is credible and they're the most comprehensive resources on Mac tech specs, online or offline. They're also linked to by Wired, Business Insider, Ars Technica, and Time magazine, among others (I checked backlinks using ahrefs.com). I believe it counts as a tertiary source under WP:NOR, and as reliable under WP:UBO.
        • Resolved. Struck "weight"; the model where it's missing is practically identical to the previous one, there's no reason to believe the weight changed (sky-is-blue stuff), so that was more of a nitpick. DFlhb (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • Inaccuracies:
      •  Y According to the Apple spec datasheets and EveryMac.com, the iMac Rev B (Oct '98) officially supported 32-256MB RAM, while Rev A (Aug '98), and the G3 266MHz and 333MHz models, supported 32-128MB.
      •  Y iMac 266 and 333 had a Rage Pro Turbo, only Rev B had Rage Pro, (per EveryMac). Also verified this using archive.org on Apple.com, it states "Turbo".
      •  Y Per EveryMac, 64MB was the minimum and 512MB RAM was the maximum for all October '99 Slot-Loading iMacs, except the G3 400 DV SE which had 128MB as the minimum. Our table also goes back and forth between stating what RAM the iMac shipped with, and stating the maximum it could support (since Apple's specs datasheets are formatted differently for both generations). Probably best to stick with what was supported, since RAM was easy to change. Per EveryMac, every other 2nd gen model had a max of 1GB, though the minimum keeps shifting between 64MB, 128MB and 256MB.
      •  Y The current table is missing a few important things from older revisions. It doesn't state where features were not available in some models (for example, the 350MHz Slot-Load model lacked FireWire, and several models lacked DVD-ROM drives), and it also misses one major feature, optional AirPort 802.11b, in the "Connectivity" row, on the second-gen iMacs. Beyond the 802.11b omission and the need to be accurate about features some models lack, I leave decisions about the level of appropriate detail up to you. Feel free to use EveryMac's Compare tool to save time when working on the table, if you agree that it's a reliable source.
        • I'll work on making sure this is harmonized as much as possible; I tried to strip out everything not directly cited to the Apple tech specs, however, because while Everymac is probably accurate, it's absolutely not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards (it's run by one guy who expressly makes no warranty to accuracy). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
        • I've gone through and double-checked the specs versus the given Apple ones, and made some adjustments; where the specs page was missing some info I either generalized it or added citations to the magazines that discussed them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
          • I just added some italics about the FireWire exception, so we don't risk misleading readers; but everything else looks good. I'll double-check the table as part of the second-pass review to make sure no errors slipped through. "Fastest-selling" is the only thing remaining for first-pass. DFlhb (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Second-pass review

edit
  • Re: this IP user's edit, on the October 5, 1999 release date: Apple's specs sheet says it's the 4th. But the models were unveiled at the Oct 5 Special Event (see this recording, 1:21:46, he says "available starting today"). I double-checked that the event happened on the 5th. Seems like a typo on Apple's part. Judging by the audience's cheers, that event was the very first time anyone heard about these new iMacs. I was about to re-check all the dates anyway; not sure why, but I had a weird feeling about them. That's one down! DFlhb (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • The other dates are all good! DFlhb (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
      • Just finished the second-pass review. Would like to make sure you agree with the "October 5" change. Also, before I pass it, I'll look for someone to give this GAR a quick look-over, to make sure I did everything right. If you have any feedback on how I conducted this, I'm all ears (on my talk page). Great job, kick-ass article! DFlhb (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Optional/suggestions for a future FA-nomination

edit
These are not required to pass GA criteria, per WP:GACN. They're utterly optional; consider this section more of an unprompted general peer-review than anything else. They're intended to be useful to someone bringing this to Featured Article-quality.
  • Infobox:
    •  Y March 18, 2003 is not in the body or table; the day of month is not verified by REF51 (512 Pixels), but is verified by EveryMac (not cited)
    •  Y Same for the precedessor being the Power Mac G3, which is not cited in the infobox or in the body; I found it's supported by Wired (not currently used). These aren't among the WP:GACR(2)(b) types, so not including them as part of the GA review;
  • Images:
    • Consider adding a pic for the iSub, or mouse/keyboard, or both;
    • Consider adding a §Gallery section, just above §Specifications; something like Garden#Design, which showcases the mouse, keyboard, the vents, the font of the "iMac" name on the front, and other aspects of the design. This would take advantage of the fact that we're not a paper encyclopedia, and would attempt to give reader a "museum" experience for these old products ("old" pet idea of mine);
  • Wikilinks, to cater to the rabbits:
    •  Y I changed Bondi blue to redirect to Blue-green#Bondi_Blue. Consider linking the first "Bondi blue" in the body to that redirect;
    • primitive 3D printers -> consider changing to "stereolithographic printers" and linking the first word to Stereolithography;
    • an OpenFirmware read-only memory — consider linking New World ROM, and rewording appropriately to avoid MOS:EGG. Also consider linking "machine-specific ROMs" to Old World ROM;
    • consider linking Subwoofer, and Harman Kardon (I'm neutral on these);
  • Copyediting::
    • to show it off — consider "to show it off and gather feedback" (verified by same citation); doesn't affect clarity so it's optional;
  • Level of detail:
    • Consider mentioning $USD prices in the specs table. They were well-covered by secondary sources, and are arguably encyclopedically relevant, even under WP:NOTPRICES, since pricing is a relatively significant component of Apple's marketing and market positioning. International prices were based on the US prices, so variation across location (per WP:NOTPRICES) is a non-concern. This would allow us to show the price segmentation by model, and the prices' evolution over time as Apple tried to conquer market share;
    • that used the internet to connect to remote servers — consider expanding on Job's vision of a thin client; that was a near-obsession of his during the NeXT days and very early Apple days; he mentioned it in multiple public Keynotes and leaked internal NeXT speeches, so it's likely covered by secondary sources.
    • After De Anza College: consider adding a sentence fragment reiterating what was riding on the presentation going well i.e. Apple's financial survival, and just as importantly, the need for the product to generate developer enthusiasm to make them stick with the Mac platform, so that the product isn't dead on arrival, etc. From the same Isaacson p.354-5 citation.
    • Consider briefly mentioning the "Apple New Product Process", which IIRC Kahney says is a direct consequence of the iMac's development
    • Breen 2001 says the default RAM was seen as insufficient for OS X. Jobs claimed otherwise in the announcement at 1:11:55 ("plenty enough to run Mac OS X"). Seems due (I found many forum posts by users echoing that).
    • Consider highlighting the strategic thinking behind each decision, not just the end result. First, the Internet was the "next big thing". Then, "Digital Video" (iMac DV, bundled iMovie, FireWire to support camcorders). Digital Video didn't catch on, so the "next big thing" became the "digital hub" (FireWire was now good for the iPod), then it became "digital music", (switch from DVD to CD-RW, bundled iTunes so people could burn CDs). Should be in Kahney 2013 or Schlender & Tetzeli 2015; otherwise, check the Mac (computer) bibliography, it's in there, but I don't have access to it right now.
    • Consider alternating between two lenses: contemporary and retrospective. It would be nice to render the "rollercoaster": the hype for each model (and each strategic shift: video, hub, music), sourced to WP:RSBREAKING covering the keynote & reactions, contrasted with how they were each critically evaluated, while maintaining strict encyclopaedic neutrality. Might benefit from breaking out each revision into their own section, with their own Reactions subsection, with §Legacy remaining focused on the whole line. A bit out there, but it would help readers put themselves in the shoes of what it was like to be an average 1998-2003 consumer, and avoid those nuances and perspectives being lost to time.
  • §Reception:
    • Consider listing the percentage of first-time computer users among Mac buyers, and comparing that with the industry; and the percentage of Wintel switchers (32% and 13% respectively by December 1998, according to Jobs (at 1:38:44), but would need secondary source);
    • Jobs says (at 1:28:25) that Time, Newsweek, Wired, USA Today, Fortune, Business Week, Popular Science, and Consumer Reports placed the Bondi Blue iMac G3 on "best of" lists in 1998; consider adding if the original articles can be found. Putting this under "Optional" since it's more of a comprehensiveness issue than a POV issue.
  • Specifications table:
    • Would be nice for each illustration in the table to contain every color of that model; likely requires Photoshopping;
    • I believe the level of detail in the Specifications table in older revisions was somewhat good, and could be supported by EveryMac. In particular, the revision names, maximum supported OS, display resolution, which processor speeds were available with which color, and the mention of the officially-supported max RAM, and true max RAM, seem useful to keep;
    • Consider giving more complex revisions their own tables, to highlight differences between each model (iMac, DV, DV+, Special Edition, etc.) Features and available colours could vary across models of the same revision. iMac DV had iMovie & FireWire, but the low-end model had neither. Many models could only have one type of drive (CD-ROM, CD-RW, or DVD), with no built-to-order options; but we imply that buyers could choose between CD, CD-RW and DVD on all 2nd-gen models. Being precise about available drive choices would help reflect Apple's changing strategy (from CD-ROM, to DVD-ROM for Digital Video, to CD-RW for iTunes and CD burning). Not all models of a revision had the same RAM and hard drive options; they were segmented by model.
    • This might reinforce the point above: consider whether the first-gen vs second-gen nomenclature truly reflects Apple or secondary sources. If not, then breaking it by revision makes sense. Not counting this as a GA-blocker, since it's more of a precision issue than WP:OR.

Comments on the review

edit

The review overall looks excellent and quite thorough. I applaud the reviewer's diligence in checking references to ensure that they support the content, as well as providing many suggestions to improve the article. DFlhb I suggest that when you are happy with the article, go a head and pass it! (t · c) buidhe 17:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Great! Thank you DFlhb (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IMac_G3/GA1&oldid=1129161315"