Talk:Systime Computers

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Systime Computers Ltd, once Britain's second largest computer manufacturer, was a victim of the Cold War? Source: "By 1985, in the aftermath of U.S. sanctions, the company was virtually destroyed." – footnote 12 in article

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Leighton Battery

Created by Wasted Time R (talk). Self-nominated at 11:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC).

• Review

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems: - I believe some of the sections in your article, specifically The Cold War, could be rewritten to have more full-length prose to it, and not merely a collection of sentences. There isn't anything wrong with the content, it could just be formatted to be nicer to read. There is also some unprofessional language, e.g. "The effect was immense". Be specific in what affected what, and don't use the same phrase twice in succession.

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - No citation was given.
• Interesting: - It is very unclear what "was a victim of the Cold War" means. If you wish to say that the Cold War caused several economic failures that lead to the company's bankruptcy, a better way to phrase it may be "was brought to bankruptcy because of Cold War restrictions on exports". I also recommend adding in an interesting fact from your summary: "During the late 1970s and early 1980s, Systime become the second largest British manufacturer of computers". I would phrase it as such: "...that Systime Computers, the second largest British computer manufacturer, was brought to bankruptcy because of Cold War restrictions?"

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Waxworker (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Waxworker: Thanks for the review. I completely agree that the Cold War section needs more work on the prose – the sources I was using were unclear on some of the timeline, and so I am looking at some additional sources from the Gale repository in the WP Library, and was waiting on the prose until that was done. But I was up against the 7-day filing deadline for DYK so I had to create the nom today. Bear with me, I will have the article in better shape in the next couple of days. As for the hook, I like a little bit of mystery in the hook, to draw the reader into clicking through. But I realize that hook styles differ ... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Waxworker: I've done further work on this and the copyediting run that I spoke out, so the article is ready for re-review. In terms of the ALT0 original hook, I think it is supported by this quote in the article: "By 1985, in the aftermath of U.S. sanctions, the company was virtually destroyed.". But per your request, here are two alternate hooks.

• ALT1: ... that Systime Computers Ltd, based in Leeds, was once Britain's second largest computer manufacturer? Source: It was the second largest computer manufacturer based in Britain, behind only the mainframe-oriented International Computers Limited (ICL). – footnote 1 in article

• ALT2: ... that Systime Computers Ltd, once Britain's second largest computer manufacturer, went into great decline due to a dispute over export restrictions during the Cold War? Source: It was the second largest computer manufacturer based in Britain, ...The exports control issue was not the only factor that led to the collapse of Systime. ... But the role of the exports issue was critical. – footnotes 1, 12, and 43 in article

Note that we can't say "bankruptcy", as you suggested, because as far as I know the company never actually entered that state. I continue to prefer ALT0, but it's up to you and the DYK promoter.

Thanks for your patience and let me know of any further comments. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Re-review

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - While you have provided a quote from the article that supports your hook, and upon searching for the quote in the article it appears well-cited, you're supposed to put the citation for your hook in your submission.
• Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Apologies for the delayed reply. The article looks much better and ALT1 and ALT2 both look like good hooks. This is a good DYK, but requires a citation, which seems like a quick fix. Waxworker (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Waxworker: It was my understanding that giving sources in the hook proposals was encouraged but not required, but in any case I have now done so for all three hooks. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: The sources are good. Thank you for adding the sources and for your patience. I approve the DYK. Waxworker (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with the nominator that ALT0 is the most "hooky". We're trying to entice readers to click on the article, not fill the preps with statements of fact. Yoninah (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Article title

Hi Wasted Time R. I'm wondering why this article exists at this title, and not at Systime Computers, as WP:NCCORP seems to suggest. I'm happy to move it, and take care of the link at DYK, if there's no big reason for the current title. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: You are right, by that guideline the 'Ltd' should be dropped. When I was perusing categories to put the article in, I saw that a number of other British company articles included some form of 'Ltd' in their title when they didn't have to for disambig. So included it here via a tiny bit of reader service WP:IAR, as this name is not well known now and the presence of 'Ltd' immediately tells the reader that this is a company and that this is British. I figured that was a good use of three extra characters. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: I see, thanks. I rather suspect those article titles exist because folks are sometimes unaware of the guideline, so if it's okay with you I'd like to move the title. Like as not someone will raise this concern again when the article appears on the main page, otherwise. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any grounds for further disagreeing, so go ahead ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I can understand your rationale, but I think it's outweighed by the need for consistency. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi @Wasted Time R:, per the conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Recent_flurry_of_GA_Reviews_and_Noms_that_seem_somewhat_hurried... I've reverted this review and am returning this article to the GAN queue at its original position. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Also I can't believe this has happened for this article twice in just a few months. Surely lightning can't strike the same place thrice. For the record, I'm leaving the reverted review collapsed above. I'll delete the original review page to avoid giving the false impression that this has gone through multiple legitimate GA reviews. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news! I hope you're staying well. Ajpolino (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Systime Computers/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 04:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's try this again—and do it right.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

The article is focused, stable, neutral and well referenced, but I have copy and image-related concerns.

Copy revisions

Origins of company

• He also did some hardware sales work, and realized that few of the customers he was selling to actually understood the capabilities of the computers they were buying. Two things here: there shouldn't be a comma (the two parts are not independent sentences), and I think the hanging preposition here doesn't read well. (Also, if this is British English, why not realised?) I'd probably reword part of that as few of the customers to whom he was selling.
• with Gow's sales abilities that in 1974, — add comma after "that"

Period of rapidly increasing growth

• antipated → anticipated
• in the UK and Holland, and made a push to sell it in the United States as well — see first critique. What helps is if you separate the sentences by removing ", and" in your head. Is "made a push to sell it in the United States as well" a complete sentence? No, so there shouldn't be a comma between the two sentences.

New facility and changes of management

• ...new industrial potential in Northern England and the company... — now here, you do need a comma.
• organising a flotation, but now — and you don't need one here.
• So instead, in March 1983 it was announced — not a fan of the tone of "so instead". perhaps Instead, in March 1983, it was announced would work better.
• The two companies had had existing business dealings, as Systime bought many Control Data peripheral devices to include in its full systems, and the recapitalisation of Systime was completed in June 1983. — Split sentence after "full systems".
• And they sponsored a Tyrrell 012 car — merge this with the preceding sentence, so there isn't a sentence that does not start with "and".

Legal actions filed by DEC

• Digital's United Kingdom subsidiary which sought — comma after "subsidiary"

Charges of violating export control restrictions

• disguise as jukeboxes — "disguised"
• some of these allegations had made — had been made, I take it?
• And despite COCOM-based — drop the "and"
• But the role of the exports issue was — consider a way to word this sentence to not start with "but"

Further decline and initiatives in software

• Now, as Computergram International stated, "a mere shadow of its former self," what remained of Systime decided... — I'd reword. Now, what remained of Systime—"a mere shadow of its former self", as Computergram International described it—decided...

Dissolution of company and legacy

• The largest of these — this section has not yet mentioned the breakup of Systime's units into separate companies, so the object of "these" is unclear.
• as a subsidiary, then during 2014 the name effectively went out of use — change to as a subsidiary; during 2014, the name effectively went out of use
• collections and an example — add comma after collections
• 'Leeds to Innovation' — named exhibitions are italicized per MOS

I have made changes for all of these comments and suggestions. And thank you for the 'What helps is if you ...' comma guidance – I will definitely try to use it on future articles.

Other notes

Images

• I'm not convinced of the connection of the Dewsbury Road image to the topic if the depicted area is several blocks from where the company started up.
• The logo is fair use and correctly tagged.
• The fair use image is correctly tagged. Its claim to meeting WP:NFCC#8 is the presence of Princess Anne, demonstrating the hoopla and reputation Systime was earning at its peak. However, there is one concern. It appears that the only time the image was publicly uploaded to the internet was on Pinterest, where it was allegedly taken from a private-only Systime Ning alumni group. We need to be able to track down the original source for fair use: see WP:NFCC 10c. I don't know how feasible this is for you, but we need to find that source or else the image may have to be removed. There might have to be some real tracking down to be able to include this, and that invite-only Ning group is a big obstacle. Which is quite a shame.
• The Iron Curtain photo is also somewhat tenuous, but the importance of export controls to the company probably makes it relevant, in my book.

Regarding the Dewsbury Road image, I think it has value because it gives the flavor of the area they started in – it shows that it was not in city centre but also not in a completely isolated area. And there is a visible 'Leeds' sign in it, which none of the other images have. I realize it's not perfect, but it's hard to find usable images for articles about companies that existed in the pre-Internet, pre-digital camera age. So I feel strongly that this image should stay in.

Regarding the Princess Anne image, as I read NFCC#10, there is no absolute requirement to track down the original source for fair use. The top-level WP:NFCC page has the phrase "where possible" in it, and the supplemental WP:NFCP#Sourcing guideline says that identification of the original source of a non-free image is strongly encouraged but that completeness is not required. In particular, "Lacking a source is not grounds for media removal, but if the nature of the media file is disputed, the lack of a source may prevent the file from being retained." I have modified the image page to better explain where the image comes from, as far as it can be traced at the moment. But as I understand it, there is no mandatory requirement to track down the original photographer or copyright holder.

Summary

I'm putting on a 7-day hold to address the copy issues and probably removing the Dewsbury Road image. You may need to remove the Princess Anne image if tracking down the original source will take longer than 7 days. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: Thanks very much for undertaking this review. My responses are above. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: Thanks for making the copy corrections; hopefully the trick helps you with other pages in general. That's a fair reading of NFCP (and one I support), and I now understand the utility of the Dewsbury Road image to the page (and totally get the difficulty of finding good images for older topics!). I'm going to pass the article for GA. Glad I was able to get this page reviewed after nearly 7 months! Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: Thanks very much! Wasted Time R (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)