Talk:Mac (computer)/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs) 12:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Will try to review in the next few days.

Summary

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:

   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:

   Free use rationales provided where required and seem appropriate.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The caption for the 2013 Mac Pro image has a tag. I don't think a "by whom" tag is needed for captions - people are free to refer to the body for more info. The only question is whether the body adequetely supports the description of it having a reputation for being criticised.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

I don't want to intrude on the review, but I wanted to point out some immediate things that jumped out at me when I saw this article in the review queue: you've got a disagreement between this article and linked articles (the Mac mini in the current lineup section is given as "4th gen: M1, 3rd gen: Intel Core i5, i7" but the Mac mini calls it the 5th and 4th generation), and sites like apple-history and Everymac are fan-run by people with no professional/expert qualifications and no fact-checking; they really shouldn't be used as sources unless you can justify them as reliable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Far from intruding, it's nice to see you here! I've seen you leave thoughtful comments in many past discussions since I joined, and that was just 2 months ago!

The Mac mini gens were just a typo on my part when trying to make the tables look nicer (from this to this), I've fixed it, and fully agreed on apple-history and Everymac. I've also removed LowEndMac for the same reason.

I'd like to justify replacing LowEndMac with a primary source (see this diff, though I later removed Fink): likely the only people who would be interested in clicking that citation are people with an interest in running BSD/Linux programs on Mac, or people who want to know how porting would work; and that old Apple Developer page is the only one I can think of that explains it both comprehensively for technical users, and approachably for newbies. DFlhb (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Footnote comments based on Special:Permalink/1121499474:

• FN3 needs a site name (The Verge), as with FN57, 117
• Are the following reliable sources? Kaomso (FN15), Launch Tomorrow (FN26), cultofmac (FN27, 62), lowendmac (FN28), everymac (FN37), 512 pixels (FN47, 80), loopinsight.com (FN61), operating-system.org (FN146), MacSales (FN142), TheNextWeb (FN140)

Seems like the article is largely based on web sources, many of them Apple-focused news sites (9to5mac, macworld, etc). At this point, Apple's history must be well covered in literature, so it's slightly surprising to see very few books etc cited? (where they are cited, they seem to be for very short amounts of content) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Will go off and look for books on Apple's history, and I'll report back in; thanks very much for pointing this out. Though please keep the citations as-is until I can replace them; that'll make my job easier. DFlhb (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I checked: LowEndMac, LoopInsight, Cult of Mac, and 512 Pixels are good; the people behind them have either been published in more credible outlets, or worked for them, or these sites have been cited by reliable Apple blogs as credible. The Mac has long had a blogosphere that's quite credible and well-established, which I admit is pretty unique. We should replace them if we find better sources; but they should be ok. And the other sources you mention should be replaced. And I'm still looking through the books I have; several of them only have digital page numbers, not physical, so that'll be a bit of a challenge. DFlhb (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Will look into book citations (Google Books to the rescue!). I'll also try to focus less on Apple-centric web sources, where possible. Theknine2 (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Side note about the citations: IABot has been down for the past month so I am not able to add any archived versions of citation links at the moment. Theknine2 (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering if it was just me. DFlhb (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I've added a bunch of book citations, and feel that the Mac Pro caption problem has been resolved. Do note, I likely won't have much time this weekend or next week for anything too time-consuming, but I'll do my best to help out. DFlhb (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

How are you doing User:ProcrastinatingReader? DFlhb (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I paused reviewing while you mentioned you both were checking books, in case of changes to the article. Assuming that's complete, will continue looking through... ProcSock (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Overall, prose is nice and the article is a solid summary of the Mac. Initial comments follow:

• In 1994, Apple's market share fell to 8.5% compared to market leader Compaq's 10.3% -- fell from? Or could be worth mentioning peak market share earlier in the section. (on that note, probably doesn't hurt to mention its current market share)
  • Addressed your point. Also reworded the end of that paragraph so it's more detailed, and addresses readers' hypothetical objection of "wait, how did they decline if the PowerPC was so initally successful?". I'm frankly quite happy with how much better this pasage is now. Current market share is mentioned in § Marketing; I think it would be confusing to put today's market share alongside 1997 stuff. DFlhb (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
• There are a few comments of it being expensive/cheap and a couple times an explicit price is mentioned. It may be nice to see this in context. How were these Macs priced with competitors?
  • I addressed this by steer away from mentioning prices as much as possible, since it's a little messy, with the 1997 USD being worth quite a different amount from today, and with the whole can of worms of: "which other companies' products should we compare Macintoshes to? Which Macintoshes should be compared, since there were dozens and dozens of models?" and stuff like that. We now only mention "Macintosh clones were cannibalizing the sales of Apple's higher-margin machines." I tried finding good numbers on that but didn't find anything solid enough. DFlhb (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• The iMac was a critical and commercial success, with Apple selling 800,000 units in 139 days, resulting in an annual profit of US$309 million in 1998, Apple's first profitable year since 1995 -- resulting in -> contributing to? Reads slightly confusing to me otherwise, as 139 days isn't a year, so the iMac can't (alone) result in that annual profit.
  • Fixed. DFlhb (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• However, the iMac's bundled USB Mouse received criticism for its non-traditional circular "hockey puck" shape -- anything more specific on the criticism of the product? Was the mouse bad/awkward to use? Or did people just not like the design?
  • Yeah, it was pilloried. Users found it hard to click with precision due to the awkward grip. Here are two articles [1][2]. I also recall that Steve Jobs invited John Carmack to the stage of an Apple keynote to demo Quake, and he completely trashed the mouse for lacking a right-button. I was shocked Steve even said the customary "Thanks John" when he retook the stage (he did, but the video cuts off before that). [3]

Anyhoo, I changed "bundled USB Mouse" to "bundled "hockey puck" mouse". That's its common name. And users may not notice the "Mouse" capitalization, and may not click on the link, expecting that it'll just lead to a generic article on all USB mice; I want to make it clear that the link leads to Apple's mouse. I changed the rest to: "was universally panned for being awkward to hold, imprecise to use, and lacking a right-click button", which is more precise. DFlhb (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• More than 140,000 preorders were placed for the iBook before it began shipping in September 1999,[48] and was the best selling portable computer in the U.S during the fourth quarter of 1999 "and it was the"? Although you may want to vary the sentence structure (compare to prev sentence), of either this or the preceding one. Probably rephrasing the preceding one is better.
  • Done. DFlhb (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• while also not including a monitor -- unclear relevance? esp as the Power Mac G4 also didn't include a monitor. Did other Apple products at the time include monitors, or was it an industry standard to include one?
  • Agree it's undue. The Cube was well known for developing cracks (and today, is notorious for it), so I took the liberty of doing a bolder edit here too: "It received acclaim for its innovative design, but the machine was expensive and non-expandable, and its translucent case was prone to developing cracks. It was discontinued a year later." DFlhb (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• These materials are billed as environmentally friendly tense?
  • I found better sourcing (replaced primary with secondary), and changed it to the following: "In October 2008, the second-generation MacBook Pro switched to a more recyclable "unibody" aluminum and glass enclosure, and eliminated several toxic chemicals, representing an early step in Apple's ongoing push for environmental friendliness." DFlhb (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• Design chief Jony Ive guided products towards a minimalist and simple feel,[84] including the elimination of replaceable batteries in notebooks.[85] reword and could perhaps expand on his other design decisions, incl expanding on the minimalist design theme and its reception.
  • I actually removed that bit during the copyedit, since I thought it looked out of place. But I agree with you. Brought it back, but in the 2012-2016 section where it fits better (since that's where he started getting criticized) and expanded on it. DFlhb (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• the keyboard can only be serviced at an Apple Store or authorized service center tense
  • Also substantially copyedited, and changed this sentence to: "Due to the Butterfly keyboard being riveted into the laptop's case, it could only be serviced at an Apple Store or authorized service center." DFlhb (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• macOS features the Aqua user interface, which has been described as "highly intuitive" by who? Is there anything else to say about the interface?
  • Yeah, I don't think that should have been included, it's just completely subjective, even if we attribute it in text. I've replaced it with more objective stuff and neutra info. DFlhb (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• Prose could be sharper and sentence structure more varied in the 'hardware' and 'software' sections.
  • I think this is now addressed. DFlhb (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• I'd expand the software sub-section a bit, and perhaps hardware one also. Maybe a note of what it succeeded (Mac OS), and a brief summary of major versions. It's not the article for macOS, of course, but the OS is a big part of Macs so it makes sense to give it a bit more coverage. I think a couple of decent-length paragraphs can be written about it here.
  • Added quite a bit. Let me know if you feel this is good. DFlhb (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

GPT-assisted copyedit, and structure improvement idea

I'm currenly working on making I've made wide-ranging improvements to the flow & writing of this article, inspired by User:DFlhb/Mac (GPT), a fun experiment. In addition to copyedits, I also made (or am making, some aren't done yet) several substantial content changes, to either clarify things (the reasons for Intel transition), add noteworthy detail (the benefits of Apple choosing NeXT; the quality control issues faced in the 90s, the significance of the Back to the Mac effort), or remove excessive detail (watercooled Power Macs, updates to Boot Camp). Sourcing has also been improved. Not all of these edits are submitted yet; I'll update this post to say when I'm done.

User:ProcSock, sorry for not thinking of these changes before you did your first-pass review. But I think these are substantial improvements, and hopefully we'll have a kick-ass Good Article! I'll obviously also continue working on the outstanding issues you already pointed out above. Got quite a few ideas for both the software and hardware sections. Done DFlhb (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC); edited to remove the middle paragraph; no longer think that was a good proposal 05:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Ok, with that, I think that's all listed concerns addressed for now. The copyedit is done. User:ProcrastinatingReader DFlhb (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC); edited DFlhb (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Sounds good. I'll try to get around to re-reviewing later this week or next. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  User:ProcrastinatingReader do let us know! I've made a few substantial changes until a few days after your Dec 13th comment, in order to improve the sourcing further, but that's done now (should have posted this earlier to make it clear). DFlhb (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Any updates on this GAN? When can other expect a re-review? Z1720 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, very sorry for delay with re-reviewing this... Been quite busy recently so haven't had sustained time to dedicate to wiki-stuff. If possible another reviewer would be better / make things faster, and I'm happy with them taking this review off my hands. Otherwise, I'll try to review as available, but that may be a couple of weeks... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Second review

Changes seem substantial enough to basically re-review (diff). So resetting the checklist above. Comments:

Lead

• Macs are known for their ease of use and minimalist designs, and are popular among students, creative professionals, and software engineers. source? And why these groups in particular?

• I removed it, due to a dilemma: sources were making these statements, but it was in passing, and I think such an absolute statement requires more rigorous/significant sourcing. I think that's everything addressed so far, ProcrastinatingReader, ball's back in your court. And thanks again for the re-review. DFlhb (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

History

• Reflected Jobs' interest in typography, it came bundled with a variety of fonts. ce needed. Also, is there anything interesting to say about the typography, esp compared to competing products, other than it just coming with lots of fonts? (besides, was this even unusual then?)

• According to the sources, it was unusual for a personal computer at the time; or at least, personal computers that people could afford. DFlhb (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Sales initially met projections, but then sputtered as customers were polarized by its groundbreaking interface finding this hard to reconcile w/ footnote... Who were these 'customers'? Sounds like Apple made a computer targeted at the mass market, but the main customerbase was still people who liked terminal prompts? If so, worth clarifying, and if not, same.

• I've checked, and you're right. The "polarization" seems to have been mostly among a few tech reviewers, but among customers, the two main problems were performance and lack of applications. I've removed this altogether. DFlhb (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• and Jobs became publicly embroiled with CEO John Sculley; Jobs left to found NeXT maybe don't put in separate clause, eg "and Jobs left Apple [to found NeXT] after becoming publicly embroiled with CEO John Sculley", ie focusing that part on him leaving (along with other developers). Up to you.

• Fixed DFlhb (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• one of the few remaining members of the Macintosh team few remaining, period (ie team was downscaled), or one of the few who was also in the original Mac team?

• The latter; fixed. DFlhb (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• However, this unwillingness to compromise on features I'm confused how made the Mac more open and expandable to appeal to tech enthusiasts and make inroads in the enterprise market is an "unwillingness to compromise on features"? clarification needed?

• Yeah, that was unclear. Basically, he wanted the Mac to be bling-ed out with features, and let engineers loose to add whatever cool thing they wanted (like a lead acid battery on a laptop, a screen so high resolution that the manufacturing tolerance was "less than 6 dead pixels", a trackball that could be removed and slotted in to either the left or right of the laptop, etc). It's "unwillingness to compromise" as in "no-compromise" (which was how Apple marketed the Portable). Copyedited. DFlhb (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• flooded the market with Mac models targeting every niche eg? and/or what niches?

• I've made it more precise. The sources provide a few examples, but they'd require a fair bit of contextualization and I don't think they're worth it. DFlhb (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Y Current lineup

Y Software

Response

@ProcrastinatingReader: My apologies for only seeing this a month late; my watchlist is very crowded, and I didn't see this page. Will respond imminently; this re-review is much appreciated! DFlhb (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Theknine2: ICYMI DFlhb (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Status query

ProcrastinatingReader, DFlhb, what is the status of this review? It has been open for over five months, and there haven't been any significant edits yet this month. Has everything necessary been done, or is there a lot still left to be accomplished? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I think all concerns so far from the 2nd review have been addressed; ProcRead is probably busy. But part of the delay was utterly my fault, for which I apologize to all (I rewrote whole sections based on book sources to address sourcing concerns in the 1st review, thus quite unfairly requiring ProcRead to do a 2nd review, and I didn't notice the 2nd review for a month; I now check the page daily to make sure that doesn't reoccur). This was my first GAN, and there's many things I wish I'd done differently. I'm much indebted to ProcRead for their patience; there's zero deadline as far as I'm concerned. DFlhb (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset and DFlhb: My bad really - I haven't been too active recently due to RL time constraints, which I didn't expect when I originally took the review.

I think it is a pretty good article, and I suspect it's either at GA standard currently or not much is left to get there. I don't know which route will be faster though: me being able to complete the review, or cancelling this and putting it back in queue / having someone else review it (either from scratch or finishing up the review I started). I'm perfectly happy with the latter though (with someone taking the review over), and do suspect it will be faster if someone doesn't mind. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, DFlhb, I've just set the review status to 2nd opinion, in the hopes that a new reviewer will step forward. If no one shows up, then should ProcrastinatingReader have more available time in subsequent months, they could complete the review if no one else has. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Works for me! DFlhb (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi DFlhb, I'll take a look at this over the next week or so. Do you have anywhere that you are looking for input or guidance specifically? If so, let me know.Rjjiii (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the review, Rjjiii. I don't know that there's any area that needs specific attention; I guess it's up to you. DFlhb (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Checking sources:

1. Linzmayer 2004, pp. 85–88, 92–94Wozniak plane crash: p. 15. Almost verifies the content. The 85-88 page range says that Raskin's initial project was meant to use an interface more similar to a word processor crossed with a command line (which is kind of how some his later projects like the Canon Cat work. P. 86 says "that may not sound much like the Mac as we know it". It explains how Jobs brought ideas from XEROX Parc to Lisa to Mac. I think that , with the Lisa's graphical interface doesn't quite fit on that sentence. It would probably make the most sense to put in a line about the Xerox/Lisa connection at the end of the paragraph after Jobs taking control so that it can be placed in context.
2. Levy 2000, pp. 90–101, 135–138: Again this almost verifies the content. It does say the Xerox didn't use drag and drop, but Levy doesn't say that double-click or menu bars are not present in Xerox software: The word processing program at Xerox had used double-clicks to select words, but the Lisa group used that function for other things as well, and Take the menu bar, that row of words that rests on the white space at the top of every Macintosh application. If you move the cursor over one of the words, like FILE, EDIT, FONT, or SPECIAL, you get Apple's successor to Xerox PARC's pop-up menu-the pull-down menu. This drops like a window shade, with a list of words representing a command that will be enacted when the cursor finds its way over the proper word. Levy's point seems to be that the Apple software was much more intuitive and than the Xerox software: A look at the evolution of the Lisa interface, however, shows that much more was involved than lifting a Trinitron from Xerox's living room. With the discipline of the marketplace looming over them, Lisa's engineers realized that PARC's ideas had to be stripped down and rebuilt to more demanding specifications. By the time Tesler arrived in mid-1980, Apple already had clarified some of PARC's ideas, making them friendlier to novice users. One of the primary differences was the implementation of something called direct manipulation-the ability to reach into cyberspace and get things done without any mediation. In the PARC world, things mostly got done by moving the cursor over selections on pop-up menus. With Lisa, however, you could manipulate almost anything on the screen, often without reverting to the middleman of menus Rather that the vague "far beyond" and listing features, maybe it would make more sense to use a specific feature (like drag-and-drop) as example of progress or fundamental differences or whatever?
3. Sandberg-Diment 1984, p. C3.: Verified. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/technology/1984Jan24_Mac.pdf presages a revolution [...] in personal computing. A prose consideration: I'd either use more of the quote or none of it (described as revolutionary by the New York Times.) as the current wording reads awkward.
4. "Steve Jobs resigns from Apple, Cook becomes CEO". Reuters. August 24, 2011. Archived from the original on August 27, 2012. Retrieved October 9, 2022. Verified, reliable source.
5. 2012–present: Tim Cook era: First paragraph verified by 4 sources. The arrangement of the sources though is confusing. All 4 sources collectively verify this paragraph, but the arrangement is confusing. For example, Honan, Mat (October 12, 2011). "iCloud Is a Bigger Deal Than You Think: It's the Future of Computing". Gizmodo. Archived from the original on February 10, 2023. Retrieved February 10, 2023. does not verify Tim Cook, first, or keynote from the preceding sentence; the end of paragraph sources do that. Why not move this stray source to the end of the paragraph so that it's clear that all 3 sources together verify it? That's a nitpick though; it passes.

• No plagiarism.
• No copyvio.
• Quotes are in quote marks with citations.

Summary: Check those early bits out in the 1979–1996: "Macintosh" era that I mentioned above and let me know how you handle it. Since the only problems were in that section, I'll probably peek into at least one more citation there. Outside of that section the article passes Criteria 2. Rjjiii (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

1. Indeed. Made it more precise.
2. Good catch. Addressed.
3. Agree and done; I don't like when single words are quoted, gives a scare quotes feel.
4. Good.
5. I assume I meant to add another cite there, and forgot. I've added Mickle 2022 instead of grouping the citations, since the later links talk about a different keynote.

DFlhb (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright checking two more:

1. Levy 2000, pp. 201–203. Yes, Sculley forces out Jobs.
2. Linzmayer 2004, pp. 67–68. Yes. Not an issue but a note for any future editors, the "American" context is something overall in this section of the book not in this specific page ranges.
3. Levy 2000, pp. 239–247. Yes. Not a GA concern, but I thought it was interesting that Alan Kay himself pitched HyperCard to Sculley and got Atkinson to stay on at Apple.

Criteria 2 passes, Rjjiii (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Checking images

• File:M2 Macbook Air Starlight model.jpg: Free image, icons are censored to be safe.
• File:Steve Jobs and Macintosh computer, January 1984, by Bernard Gotfryd - edited.jpg: Public domain, from US government.
• File:Powerbook 100 pose.jpg: free image, multiple free licenses.
• File:IMac colorful internet lowres.png: fair use with plausible rationale.
• File:IBook G3 M6497 J.jpg: free image, multiple free licenses.
• File:PowerBook G4 12-fr.jpg: free image, multiple free licenses.
• File:IMac G4 and keyboard.jpg: CC licensed from Flickr.
• The multiple image template to avoid stacking is nice.
• File:Steve Jobs with MacBook Air 2.jpg: confirmed free on Commons.
• File:New Mac Pro (12093123884).jpg: CC licensed from Flickr.
• File:MacBook Pro Retina 001.jpg:CC licensed from photographer.
• File:M1 iMac Green model.jpg: censored to prevent ip issues.
• File:Ad apple 1984.jpg: the ad is very relevant to this article. This has a strong fair use rationale.
• File:Mac Pro 2019 on wheels.jpg: CC licensed from photographer.
• File:MacOS Ventura Desktop.png: I'm not going to object to this for the GA review. On copyright grounds this is 100% fair use in the US. Wikipedia's hosting policy is rather strict on non-free image usage, so just as a heads up this will likely be removed at some point.

Summary: This passes criteria six by a good ways.Rjjiii (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Last point is fair. I'll leave it for now, and after the GA is over, I'll add prose commenting on the Mac's UI idiosyncracies (menu bar and dock, "app model" vs "window model" unlike Windows and Linux, HIG guidelines, "Mac look and feel" some users demand of native third-party apps) which was the point the image was supposed to make. Maybe that'll be enough to strengthen the NFU rationale, maybe not; I'll request extra scrutiny on that when I bring it to FA, and won't fight hard to keep the pic. DFlhb (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't have an issue with it and it's fine for GA. I've just noticed that kind of thing frequently gets deleted.Rjjiii (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Criteria 3, 4, and 5

These all pass. No edit wars. No NPOV violations. Covers the main aspects. Stays on topic. I'll do Criteria 1 sometime soon.Rjjiii (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Criteria 1: prose and layout

Confusing language:

• which brought the Mac to the same ARM architecture as iOS devices.
• made of translucent plastic in "Bondi blue" color. The image shows 5 colors. Did it come in only one color at first? Not clear from the article text.
• , maintaining a high degree of control over the end-product. This seems to anticipate a criticism about Apple's reliance on Asian manufacturing or maybe Foxconn specifically. If that's what it's getting at, either it should be omitted or the criticism should be put into context.
• Over the years, Mac OS X was rebranded to OS X, and is now known as macOS. It was rebranded twice?

Grammar errors:

• strengths lied lay
• an all-in-one computer which was that was
• trend-setter trendsetter (I think?)
• It was best selling laptop in the U.S. during the fourth quarter of 1999.

Layout:

The "Current Mac laptop and desktop computers" is really wonky. If you do take this to FA status, you should check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables, but that's not required for GA listing.

I think it just barely slips by the GA criteria's subset of the manual of style. The lists sections says Embedded lists are lists used within articles that supplement the article's prose content. They are included in the text-proper or appended, and may be in table format. which definitely covers the "Mac models in production" but the one with the images is more using the table for layout than as a table. And MOS:PARA talks about bulleted lists Bullet points should not be used in the lead of an article, and should be used in the body only to break up a mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort to comprehend.

Even though I had comments here, Criteria 1 passes. Rjjiii (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

DFlhb and Theknine2, I did a few copyedits[4] and checked a few more sources. Double check my edits and I'll pass this. Are you doing a "Did You Know" entry? It looks like this article was never posted there and it's been over a year since it was on the main page, so it should be elible. Rjjiii (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Addressed first ("ARM processor architecture" should be clearer) and second one (iMac colours now mentioned, citation page range extended to support this addition). The "high degree of control" referred to Apple being an extremely demanding client for manufacturers and suppliers, in terms of manufacturing tolerances, methods and tools used, quantities, deadlines, etc. (covered by Mickle 2022). When I figure out a concise and clear way to mention that, I'll add it.

Using tables for layout is an accessibility issue so I've replaced the current models table with an image gallery. Still not supported by prose (though that's no better or worse than it was) which I'll need to add later. I'll look for secondary-source commentary, analysis and criticism on the lineup in-and-of-itself. There should be stuff to say here, already have a few ideas.

I don't do DYKs because I never had any interest in them as a reader. Theknine2 is very welcome to nominate it though.

Thanks for the copyedits, and thanks again for your review. DFlhb (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

A few last positive comments as I close this out. The edits look good, thanks for going above and beyond here. Regarding ""high degree of control", I think I get what you mean and feel free to add that content back in; I just found the previous wording confusing. Glad you've already got the source to work from.

The gallery works much better than the table on NVDA and mobile.

That makes sense; I'll be sure to leave a message on Theknine2's talk page about DYK then.

And congrats! Rjjiii (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.