Talk:HCR Corporation

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) 20:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Toronto-based Human Computing Resources was a pioneer in the commercialization of the Unix operating system?
  • ALT1:... that the founder of HCR Corporation later gave critical assessments of the product strategies followed by himself and two successors?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Geheime Staatspolizei (Austria)

Created by Wasted Time R (talk). Self-nominated at 16:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC).

I'm surprised I've never heard of this company. Excellent article - quite new, very extensively cited, GA-worthy. Strongly prefer ALT0 hook. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review Undone

GA review undone

This review is transcluded from Talk:HCR Corporation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: TheEpicGhosty (talk · contribs) 14:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC) I'll be reviewing this article. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Rate Attribute Review Comment 1. Well-written: 1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Well-written prose. 1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Complies well with style guidelines. 2. Verifiable with no original research: 2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. More than sufficient references. 2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Reliable sources for subject. 2c. it contains no original research. No OR. 2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No copyvio or plagiarism. 3. Broad in its coverage: 3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. On topic. 3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Stays on topic, unnecessary detail not added. 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Neutrally written. 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Lack of edit warring. 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: 6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Images well tagged. 6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Relevant images, captions suitable. 7. Overall assessment. Overall I approve of this article and will pass it. This was not a proper view.--Moxy 🍁 03:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Recent_flurry_of_GA_Reviews_and_Noms_that_seem_somewhat_hurried... I've undone this review and returned the article to its original place in the GAN queue. Sorry for the inconvenience! Fingers crossed it quickly finds a new reviewer. I hope all is well. Ajpolino (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HCR Corporation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 13:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I'm starting this review. Note: this is my first GA review. I see you've done quite a few of these yourself, so please feel free to provide me with feedback on how I'm doing as a reviewer :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thanks very much for taking on the review, I will start making changes and responding to items. As for it being your first one, you seem to be doing just fine. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Prose

I'm just going through the entire article from top to bottom, making comments as I go through a first pass. In almost all cases, these are just suggestions. Feel free to accept or reject them as you see fit.

I'll be going through the references in a later pass, but I did notice that you've got references to newspaper.com with URLs that are term searches (i.e. https://www.newspapers.com/image/463861965/?terms=hcr%2B%22santa%2Bcruz%2Boperation%22). I believe they prefer that you use the clip version (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/49131925/ottawa-citizen-article-about-sco/), which don't require you to be logged in to access. Could you go through and work on all of those while I finish up the other stuff?

Yes, I have made clips and referenced them for all of the Newspaper.com cites.

• "worked on the Unix operating system and system and business software for it.", the repetition of "system" is awkward. Maybe just, "worked on the Unix operating system and software for it, particularly business applications?"

But it was really their system software that they were more known for, and successful with. I've rewritten this with linked terms, which may make it easier to visually parse.

• "By a later description", later than what? I think what you mean is, "After the company was shut down", but that should be clarified.

I've taken out the 'later' for simplicity, since I think Baecker had the same perspective when the company was going.

• "As such it was a pioneer in the Unix industry". Maybe a comma after "as such"?

Done.

• "It became the subsidiary SCO Canada, Inc., which existed until 1996 when the Toronto offices were closed down.". It's not clear what was closed down. Was it just the Toronto office, or the entire subsidiary?

The legal subsidiary kept going, and there may have been some sales/SE type staff that were kept on, but almost all of the former HCR was shut down. Not sure how to express that concisely however.

• "Human Computing Resources was founded in 1976 by several computer scientists at, and graduates of, the University of Toronto, with the aim of creating computer graphics and systems software." I think this could be two sentences. Starting at, "with the aim..." seems like a distinct thought. Perhaps, "The new company's aim was..."? Or maybe combine with the next sentence, "The aim of the new privately held company..."?

Hmm. To me it's one thought – if you start a company you must have an idea of what that company is going to be doing.

• "And another co-founder was David Tilbrook", drop the "And"

Have changed to 'An additional co-founder', since don't want to repeat the previous 'another'.

• "(Other Baecker students who later became well known...", delete parens around sentence.

Seems to me parens are just right for this historical aside, but I've noticed that for some reason WP editors hate full sentences in them, so the parens are now gone.

• "But it also tried to establish a product business...", delete "But"

I'm of the school of thought that starting a sentence with 'But' is an effective mechanism that can, like this Writer's Digest piece suggests, "transitional function, communicating certain points clearly and effectively."

• "In particular, as Baecker later said,", later than when?

Later than at this point in the narrative. This usage is to distinguish what people say at the time versus what they say later in retrospect. It usually doesn't matter when that 'later' is, just that is later and that they've had the benefit of a fuller perspective and possibly the cost of not remembering something exactly right. I've changed my mind on this. I was just doing a GAN review of another article where I asked for clearer dating of some quotes, and realized I should revisit that here. And I have found the Baecker slides, in a slightly earlier version, on the University of Toronto website and have changed the cite to that. This location more clearly establishes the provenance and context of Baecker's analysis, that of a college course, and I have spelled that out in the article text.

• "As such their customer space was in the OEM and VAR markets," I commented earlier that "as such" needs a comma after it. I don't have a strong opinion about that, but if you change it in one place, change it in both.

Now changed here too.

• "including the likes of Control Data Corporation, NCR, Prime Computer, and National Semiconductor", delete "the likes of"

Removed.

• "Tilson himself published a lengthy piece in Byte magazine". Calling it "lengthly" is a judgement call. Unless a WP:RS referred to it as that, leave it out. Or replace it with a specific value: "three page", "500 word", etc.

Have changed to 'seven-page article'.

• "The work involved often included establishing Unix environments and functioning compilers". There's something awkward about that sentence. Maybe just delete "involved"?

Changed to 'This work often included ...'

• "The work also stressed the portability traits, good and bad, of the C language.". Don't repeat the phrase 'the work'. Maybe just, "It also stressed..."?

So changed.

• "An employee of HCR in the early 1980s, Richard Miller,[25] had had", deleted duplicate "had"? Or perhaps "had had" is actually the correct construction? Your call.

It's intentional, since we're briefly going backwards from the current narrative point.

• "having done one the first port of Unix to a non-PDP architecture in 1977" I think that should be, "one of the first ports"? You also should clarify that it's one of the first ports ever, not one of the first of that year. Maybe, "having done, in 1977, one of the first ports..."?

So changed. What I had was also missing an 'of'.

• "By 1983, the trade magazine InfoWorld was stating". This seems like an odd mix of tenses. Maybe, "In 1983, ... InfoWorld stated..."?

So changed.

Stopping with responses here for the moment. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Moreover, HCR had an implementation of Unity that ran under the VMS operating system on VAX-11". I'm not sure what you mean by "ran under". Was this some sort of user-space unix emulator, like Eunice? This needs to be clarified.

This is a colloquial 'under' rather than an architectural one, and another source says 'on top of' so I changed to that, and added a bit of what it looked like from a functional perspective. I tried to track down whether Unity was based on Eunice, or like Eunice, but I couldn't tell; the Life with Unix book says that there were four companies putting out Unix-on-top-of-VMS products, including HCR and the Wollongong Group's Eunice.

• Also, with respect to the immediately preceeding note, you should be consistent in your use of "VAX" vs "VAX-11". The later may be technically more correct, but it was universally just called "VAX" by people in the industry, so I suggest you use that shorter form.

I've redone the usage and link to be VAX-11 the first time, VAX after that.

• "HCR received funding in 1982 and 1983 from two Canadian venture capital firms, Ventures West Technologies and TD Capital Group, with the two combined ending up with 50 percent ownership of HCR". Maybe break this up into two sentences? "...TD Capital Group. The two combined..."?

This sentence doesn't seem overly long to me, and the next couple of sentences are short, so I think to break this one up will result in choppy prose.

• "The company was profitable during some of these years." It's not clear what "these years" are. 1992 & 1993 from the previous paragraph? But if that's the case, the intervening "subsequently" blurs the connection.

The source isn't specific. Typically small software companies like this could veer back and forth between profit and loss based on whether one or two big deals closed or not.

• "As Unix began to penetrate into wider consciousness in the 1980s..." This whole paragraph could use some rework. The first sentence could probably be broken up ("...became Unix evangelists. They were quoted in ... and appeared in ..." In the next couple of sentences, repetition of "also" seems awkward, but I'm not sure how to rephrase it.

Agreed there were some run-on sentences here, I have broken them up in a couple of places and eliminated one of the 'also' occurrences.

• "Years later Baecker spoke of the "Three Losing Product Strategies of HCR", later than when?

See my response above – this is him looking back in retrospect. Now attributed, per change-of-mind above.

That's enough for now, I'll pick up with "Change in leadership" in another session.

• "Under Kukulsky, the company sought to focus the company on software products...". Rewrite as, "Under Kukulsky, the company focused on software products..."

I've removed the extra 'the company', but left the 'sought to', since companies aren't always successful in changing their focus (in particular sales forces often want to keep selling existing products to existing customers rather than looking for new markets).

• "The company was faced with a significant loss for 1985, due to increased development costs and putting additional resources into sales and marketing", rewrite as, "... due to increased development, sales, and marketing costs..."

So changed.

• "HCR brought to a release point" -> "HCR released..."

Also changed.

• "which sold for around $7,500 a development system.", replace "a" with "per"?

I think either is okay, but changed.

• "create new business applications or further tailor existing ones." Delete "further". Or maybe "further tailor" -> "customize"?

Removed 'further'.

• "Some 1,500 VARs signed up for Chariot." This might be OK, but consider "purchased" instead of "signed up for"

VARs don't necessarily buy anything up front – they may get a free copy to do development or system integration with, and then later pay royalties back on any systems they sell. So I think this should stay as it is.

• "Baecker later spoke critically of this era", later than when?

Same response as above. Now attributed, per change-of-mind above.

Got delayed on various fronts, but am on this again and will resume with more responses later today. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• "By July 1986, Kukulsky was gone". Gone how? Fired, quit, died, abducted by space aliens?

Don't know. And your last possibility actually has sort of happened – see USWeb.

• "He had previously been serving as vice president of technical development" Clarify the anticedent of "he". Kukulsky or Tilson?

Reworded and clarified to Tilson.

• "The company divested itself of the business products,[13] deciding to return its focus " Companies don't decide, people do. Maybe just, "The company ... returned its focus...."

Rephrased as 'the company's management'.

• "The headquarters office had moved as well, now being located a short distance away". Away from where?

Reworded to clarify.

• "The company made a focus on development tools." -> The company focused on...

Reworded for people not company, per above.

• "could be used in conjunction with existing Unix-based configuration management commands such as SCCS and the like.", delete "and the like".

Removed.

• "In Baecker's later review of the company's strategic history," -> "In Backer's <insert year> review..."

Again, see my view on this above. Now attributed, per change-of-mind above. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• "In September 1995, it was announced that SCO was buying the New Jersey-based UnixWare". Wikilink New Jersey. But, more than that, if this was a Canadian company, the right level of comparison is country-to-country, so "was buying the US-based UnixWare" (and similar change in the next sentence, "New Jersey office").

Text reworked along these lines.

• "which had earlier acquired it from Unix Systems Laboratories in 1993." -> "which in turn had acquired it from Unix Systems Laboratories in 1993".

So changed.

OK, that does it for the basic once-through for writing. This seems like a good place to pause.

Verifiable

Infobox

• "Defunct 1996", but Category:Canadian companies disestablished in 1990.

It's often the case when writing about tech companies that they don't disappear all at once. First they get acquired, then their offices get closed and people let go, then their products go into maintenance mode, then their products disappear altogether. So which of these markers should be the "fate" in the infobox? Which is "defunct" in the infobox? Which is "disestablished" in the category system? My approach is that the first and third of these are when the company stops being an independent entity and the second is when most traces of it are gone.

Lead section

• "The company was most known for..." is referenced to a BYTE article which doesn't appear to support any of those things.

This is a general statement summarizing the article and intentionally without a cite. The Byte cite that comes later is just for that sentence.

• "By 1990 HCR was Canada's leading...". The cited article uses the term "hailed", which sounds like an opinion, so I don't think we can state this as established fact.

I've removed this.

• "a prominent player in the Canadian Unix scene." is editorializing and not fully supported by the cited reference.

This is a pretty direct paraphrase of the source's "the Canadian Unix marketplace ... in which HCR and Tilson are prominent figures." And how it is editorializing?

Saving here, before the next batch. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Origins at the University of Toronto

No issues

Formative years

• "Initially Human Computing Resources focused on information technology consulting and contract programming jobs." The cited source mentions consulting, but not contract programming (although, the reference for the next sentence does mention contract work).

The cited source (1985 National Post article) says "In its early days, HCR concentrated on consulting and contract programming for Unix systems."

• "But it also tried to establish a product business,..." is referenced to a google search???

No, this is referenced to a snippet view of a CIPS Review (La Revue ACI) publication; I've changed it and another cite to a different volume of the same to make clear the title is unknown but give the rest of the details as best can.

I'm going to push back on this one. We can't have a reference to an article we don't even know the title of. I've tried finding it in JSTOR and the NYPL research collection, but neither has it. If we can't find a better citation, we should just drop that sentence.

• • Related style issue: don't start a paragraph with "But".

See above on same.

• "Human Computing Resources began to focus on writing software for the Unix operating system". When did they do this?

I didn't see an exact date for this. If they are like most small software companies, they probably got into it initially by happenstance and then when they got some positive reaction from it, devoted more efforts towards it.

• "The early history of Xenix has a sometimes unclear narrative, but some accounts ...". I think there's a word missing: "but BY some accounts"? Also, at the end of the sentence, "...HCR had a greater role than that", it's not clear what the anticedent of "that" is supposed to be.

Reworded/expanded to cover both points.

• "it was primarily sold on a stand-alone basis for the PDP-11 and VAX-11". The cited reference notes N16032 and M68000 in addition to pdp and vax. In fact, it lists those other platforms first, which leads me to believe they were the primary product. Likewise, there's no indication that the stand-alone product was primary over the emulation. Hmmm, I see this touches on the VMS emulation issue I raised earlier, as does the following Computerworld reference, but maybe the text still needs some clarification on that point. Saying, "sought to capitalize on the large VAX/VMS installed base" is editorializing a bit; the source doesn't actually say VMS had a large installed base.

I'm not sure where the got the 'primarily' from but I have removed it. As for VAX/VMS having a large installed base, I think for people familiar with this computing era that is a 'Paris is the capital of France' kind of fact that does not need proof, but that has been removed as well.

Hmmm. "People familiar with this computing era" means me :-) My first Unix system was v6 running on a pdp-11/45.

Finished up to "Unix specialists". I'll pick up with "Other products" next time.

• "HCR received funding in 1982 and 1983 from two Canadian venture capital firms," I know the cited source doesn't say but it would be nice if it could be clarified (via another source) which firm invested in which year. Or maybe both firms did some in each year? Also, the two adjacent citations to the same source can be combined into a single citation at the end of the paragraph (and similarly for the next paragraph).

Didn't see anything on the funding in other sources either; not surprising since back then funding rounds often didn't get the public attention they would later on.

Regarding coalescing citations to the same source, I know many editors want that, but I strongly disagree as it becomes a future maintenance headache when text is moved around or when you are trying to see how much of someone else's article is sourced. I much prefer a footnote at the end of each sentence, even if it is the same; consider it like Ibid in print books. And real-life readers of our articles pay no visual attention to our footnotes and they do not care if the footnote numbers sequence is 5 6 7 8 or 5 5 5 6 or anything else.

• For the "Life with UNIX: A Guide For Everyone" source, the URL points to a weird link. Worldcat (https://www.worldcat.org/title/life-with-unix-a-guide-for-everyone/oclc/502638756) might be more useful. Also, pick up the ISBN.

The link has been improved to a pdf at a Princeton University mirror. But the Prentice-Hall copyright page in the pdf shows no ISBN and I'm reluctant to pull one off the web lest it be to a different edition.

• "As Unix began to penetrate into wider consciousness in the 1980s, employees at Human Computing Resources", I think just call them HCR here.

So changed.

• I got a chuckle at the Montreal Gazette source: "Soon everything is going to Unix, isn't it? No it isn't". Oh, what little did they know :-)

Quite!

• "HCR staff frequently published articles for,", the characterization of "frequently" is WP:OR not directly supported by the cited source.

Changed to give a specific count but not characterize the number.

Saving here. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Change in leadership

• "It included the business application modules of Chronicle but more importantly contained a 4GL-like...", the cited source doesn't specify which of the modules was more important.

This is from the second cite on the statement, Baecker's course lecture, where he said the company invested heavily in a 4GL (but didn't know what it was doing).

A couple of general comments on things I've noticed in multiple places.

• Add ISBN / ISSN wherever available.

See above re Life with Unix. An ISBN is now added for the Pate UNIX Internals source, which is the only other real book cited here. As for ISSN, I have to confess I've never seen the utility of adding those and it seems to me they just add to citation clutter. I don't even know where to find them – if you look at an old issue of Computerworld, does it show an ISSN number in the ownership box or something like that?

I was mostly cargo-culting a complaint from some of my own reviews :-)

• It may be unavoidable, but the whole article strikes me as heavy on primary (and in some cases, first-party) sources. There's certainly enough secondary sources to meet WP:N, but it would be nice if there could be less reliance on primaries.

For a business subject like this, clearly notable but never especially famous and gone before the modern web era began, the use of primary sources to supplement what you can get from secondary sources is pretty much inevitable.

I'll pick up with Change of name and another change in leadership probably tomorrow.

Change of name and another change in leadership

• "By 1987, the official name of the company had changed to HCR Corporation." This conclusion appears to be based on the affiliation listed on a conference paper. This may not be the official name; people put all sorts of things on conference papers. An official name change should be sourced to a legal document, such as a corporate resolution or financial filing. Likewise for the next sentence where you infer the official company headquarters from the address on the conference paper. The accompanying photo caption also states that the location was "later SCO Canada, Inc."; that needs to be sourced.

For public companies, corporate name changes usually appear in press releases and headquarters location changes can often be cited to annual reports. But HCR was private and sometimes you have to rely upon inferences like I have made here. I have added a sentence and cite in the text about SCO Canada remaining in the same location.

• "Tilson gave talks at Unix-focused conferences" is sourced to just a single talk. Also, "about the importance and the future of Unix" is kind of WP:OR; you're reading the paper and making conclusions regarding what it's about. I'm nit-picking a bit here, but it would still be better to have a secondary source which describes the broad subject area of his talks, rather than infering this from a (single) primary source.

I've rewritten this to just describe the one talk, but I'm still describing it as being about the future of Unix. If the talk's set-up line is "What can we expect in the next thirteen years?", I don't consider it OR to say the talk is about the future. Would a secondary source be better, sure, but as noted above that's not always possible.

• "The company continued to do sophisticated Unix porting work". Calling it "sophisticated" is editorializing.

Have changed to 'complex', since this for a different category of machine architecture and would pose novel problems.

• "they had developed components of their own, such as a portable intermediate-code global optimizer that fit into the pcc scheme." The source talks about a "global optimizer", but doesn't say anything about "intermediate-code". Also, this is the second of two consecutive sentences sourced to the same reference; they can be combined into a single note.

The 'see also' in the cite talks about a Portable Intermediate Code Optimizer. Regarding cite coalescing, see prior response above.

• "HCR developed and sold the Configuration Control Menu System, or CoCo." The URL in the reference points to an entry for Menu Shell, not CoCo.

There are multiple pages given for that cite; CoCo appears on page 308.

• "By 1990, HCR had around 50 employees." This and the next sentence can share a single footnote.

See above re cite coalescing.

Saving here. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll pick up with Acquisition by SCO in my next session.

Acquisition by SCO

• "The two companies had been both allies and competitors at different times in the past", the cited source doesn't actually say that. All it says is, "He was the founder, CEO, and Chairman of HCR Corporation, a Toronto-based UNIX contract R&D and technology development and marketing firm, sold in 1990 to a U.S. competitor."

The 'allies' was a reference to earlier in the article regarding the Xenix role that SCO and HCR shared; I have replicated those cites to here.

• "as had the software products group of Logica (which had been part of the early Xenix work, and which SCO had previously acquired in 1986)" I don't see anything in any of the three cited sources which talks about Logica's relations to HCR.

See the Doug Michels video used as a source, starting at 10:45 – he talks about Logica in the UK, SCO in the US, and HCR in Canada all being in the same Microsoft-licensed business in different territories and how SCO eventually ended up buying the Xenix/Unix business of the other two.

• "The New Jersey office had a languages and development tools group with more advanced technology than what SCO Canada had been working with," The cited source does not support this.

I've added a second source to that footnote which supplies the necessary linkage – the former Novell New Jersey office produced UnixWare and its associated development tools, which became SCO's Universal Development Kit and the ongoing development tools for use for both the former Novell UnixWare and SCO's existing OpenServer products.

• "and that made the SCO Canada engineering staff largely redundant once the Novell deal was closed in December 1995. The SCO Canada office was shut down in early 1996." That's referenced to a copy of Baecker's CV, which both does't say that and is first-person, primary, etc.

Baecker's CV bottom page 3 does say SCO Canada ended in early 1996. Yes, it's a primary source. It's often difficult to pin down when companies end and offices close, so sometimes sources like this are the best that can be found.

That does it for the verifying references work. I'll let you dive into the suggested changes and come back when you're done with all that. The rest of the review (broad, neutral, stable) all looks like no problem. I'll take a closer look at the images when I get back to this.

@RoySmith: Thanks again for your very detailed review and I believe I have finally caught up to it in terms of my responses. And let me make an overall comment regarding the level of sourcing. If you believe it is insufficient to warrant GA status, you can fail the nomination on that basis and I will understand, no hard feelings (and I will not nominate it again hoping to find an easier reviewer, an unfortunate practice that has been known to happen). The changes I have made in response to your comments have already improved the article, so the effort on both our parts will have been worthwhile. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyright

• article on copyright list.--Moxy- 16:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is about. Everything in the article that isn't a quote has been pieced together and written by me in my own, sometimes clumsy, prose. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Wasted Time R, I think this is all just noise (but thank you to Moxy for running the scan). Oddly, when I re-run the scan now, I get different results than I did a few days ago. At that time, I got two top hits that were like 45% similar, but they were clearly some kind of spammy click-baity mirror that copied hunks of text from us. What I'm getting now are two hits, both of which are false positives. Nothing here that I'm concerned about. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Summing up

@Wasted Time R: I've made a couple of comments in-line. If I didn't comment on something, that means I'm good with your changes (or lack thereof). The only specific thing that really concerns me is the CIPS Review reference.

There are some old bound volumes of industry magazines and computer association publications which are available in Google Books snippet view. Searches on this can give you enough viewable text to clearly establish a fact and the page number it's on and the year it appears, without knowing the title of the containing piece or the exact issue within the volume in which it appeared (the page numbers recycle with each issue). Obviously that's not ideal in terms of bibliographic information, but nevertheless it is a real thing. In this case I have tracked down that the snippet views comes from a microfiche collection at the Green Library at Stanford University, which could be visited in-person. And the full text is also available via HathiTrust via a Stanford University login. So it is available, just not that easy to access. But if one did access it, it would simply be a matter of checking the page 8 (or whatever) in each of the half-dozen or so issues within the specified volume and then you would have the full bibliographic detail. In any case, I've expanded the citations for the CIPS Review references in the article to give this further information. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know how to judge the quality of sourcing vis-a-vis the GA criteria. I'll ask for somebody to give a second opinion specifically on that one point. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, we'll see what the second opinion says. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Second opinion needed

I've done a few GA articles, but this is my first review, so I'm a little unsure on a judgement call. I've verified that all the citations support the statements in the article, but I'm concerned about the percentage of sources which are WP:PRIMARY. I don't think they're necessarily unreliable, but they're not the WP:SECONDARY sources we prefer. If a more experienced reviewer could look specifically at that aspect, I'd appreciate it. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd thought about reviewing this GAN earlier but couldn't commit the time for it. I'll try to help here if I can, and created a section below with my comments. Oh, I've done 15 GA reviews and have helped promote 4 GAs, so I know a little bit but wouldn't call myself an authority. I did not spot a high percentage of primary sources; please let me know if I missed any. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm just offering additional advice. I'm not in any position to overrule RoySmith. It is up to that user, as the reviewer, to pass or fail this GAN. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Reidgreg

We do have to be careful with sources, and going to GAN means trying to get everything up to policy rather than practice. I think we need to list the questionable sources and discuss them individually to make certain there are no problems. There are matters of reliability, of tone in presenting the information, and of scope and level of detail. In some cases, it may be better to move a statement down to a footnote where it will have less emphasis. Here are the sources that stood out to me as potentially problematic:

• "Robust New C Compiler Test Suite from HCR and ACE Offers Stress Tests, Conformance to New ANSI C Standard" Press release. The citation template might note that it's at Google Groups, as well as the author, Jim Sullivan. This is supporting the article's statement A collaboration undertaken in 1989–90 with Associated Computer Experts (ACE) of the Netherlands resulted in the release of SuperTest, a suite that included nearly 400,000 separate tests of C compiler conformance and quality. I feel that if this is rephrased to indicate it as an announcement from the companies rather than an objective statement of fact vetted by a third party, that it would be okay. So something like, "In 1990, HCR announced the release of the SuperTest suite, in collaboration with Associated Computer Experts (ACE) of the Netherlands, which included nearly 400,000 separate tests of C compiler conformance and quality." Something like that.

I have changed to this wording and I have expanded the cite to include that it came out on the Usenet comp.newprod group (Usenet was the Web/Twitter of that era; old posts to it are now found in Google Groups). I have not included Jim Sullivan as an author because he was just a person within SCO with a Usenet reader and not necessarily the person who wrote the press release.

• Profile of Michael Tilson Primary source. It is used to support the statement However, Tilson's recollections revealed a more positive view: "My role as CEO was to turn the company around with greater focus on core business. The ultimate result was to be acquired as a healthy business with a good return for shareholders and new opportunities for employees." I feel that this is okay, tone-wise, as it is presented as a direct quotation. It isn't really claiming anything in Wikipedia's voice except that Tilson expressed this. I think it's okay for NPOV, as it balances the quote preceding it.
• SCO/C++ 3.0 This is essentially a resource listing complier products, used to verify the address from a product label. Used to support the statement The office remained at the same Bloor Street address. [following the SCO acquisition]. It's a bit weak (an unknown author stating what's on the product label rather than where the offices actually are) and I feel it could probably be assumed that they'd stay at the same location. I would tend to remove it or to relegate it to a footnote, explaining that a product label gives the same address. Another option might be to use the |quote= parameter of the citation template with "product from * SCO Canada, Inc. (formerly HCR Corporation) * 130 Bloor Street West, 10th floor * Toronto, Ontario" to indicate a product label.

I've added a second source to this cite, a job posting to the Usenet comp.compilers group that went out to an email reflector (sort of the Monster/ZipRecruiter of that era) which clearly states the kind of work that SCO Canada was still doing at that address.

• X3J16 Meeting No. 18; WG21 Meeting No. 13; 9 - 14 July 1995 The website says that it's a mirror so maybe better to use the main url http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/1995/N0734.htm at website www.open-std.org . This seems to be a report on a five-day technical conference, and is used to support the statement and maintained a role in the language's standardization effort. [referring to SCO and C++ ] SCO's involvement isn't much mentioned except for sending one person (Simon Tooke) who again isn't much mentioned (although he attended all five days of the conference). It's a bit weak, but at the least it does show that they are maintaining a presence in this part of the industry. I'm okay with it.

I have swapped the better url into the cite.

• Job Openings at SCO Canada in Toronto Another Google Groups release from the company. Used to support the statement SCO Canada also took on some other work, such as providing strategic partners with porting assistance to SCO Unix, I don't think the source actually says that; it says that they're seeking to hire people to do that work (in the future – note "leading a newly created team"), not that they are actually doing that work at the time of release. If there was something to confirm that they actually hired people for this work, that might be something, but this only demonstrates an intent to move in that direction.

I have changed this wording to '... such as looking to provide ...', which doesn't commit to it having happened (although it's very likely it did, since getting ISVs to port their applications to an operating system is vital to that operating system's chances for remaining viable).

• Technical Advisory: Can OpenServer 5 access NetWare 4.1 servers as they support NDS and we do not? From the SCO sales website. Used to support the statement [SCO Canada] doing integration work between SCO Unix and Novell NetWare. The source seems to be a Q&A forum for technical help/customer service. The SCO employee seems to be quite knowledgable about the subject, but it's a single instance and I'm not certain if this is significant work or a significant part of the work the company is doing. (I might have said the same thing about the conference above, being a single brief mention, but that was a five-day conference with industry leaders, and this is a brief technical help post.)

Even though NetWare was steadily losing marketshare to Windows NT by early 1996, especially for new sales, it still had a large installed base and Unix-based operating systems were still eager to have effective integration with it, especially since its ability to interact with Unix had been one of NetWare's selling points in the corporate world.

• Ronald Michael Baecker, page 3 of CV/resume. Cited to support and that made the SCO Canada engineering staff largely redundant once the Novell deal was closed in December 1995. The SCO Canada office was shut down in early 1996. I suppose it's only for the last sentence. It's a fairly simple statement. I'd prefer something better, but for simple verification of the shutdown date, I'd tend to accept it. That the company (or subsidiary) no longer exists is enough to say that it was shut down, though not of the the circumstances of its closing.

Were there more primary sources that I missed? I assumed all the magazines were okay, though if there were citations to ads or paid articles those should be examined. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Thank you very much for helping out here. I have made some changes based on your comments and suggestions, as indicated above. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Reidgreg, I also thank you for your extensive input. Based on your remarks, I'm going to go ahead and pass this.

Wasted Time R I still have reservations about the CIPS Review reference. It's not just the technical issue of not having a title. The core problem is that this is a couple of sentence snippet, with no real context. It feels like dumpster diving, but the facts it supports are certainly not controversial, so I won't let that be a blocker. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

You're both welcome. It looks like all of that has been addressed. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I did some searching via ProQuest but didn't find any better sources for the above. If you're interested, here are three sources with some extra tidbits (not needed for GA breadth):

• Breckenridge, Joan (28 October 1986). "A leader in Unix software makes a profit at last". The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ontario. p. B28. ProQuest 386078154. Discusses the company's financial success. Mentions their early unsold newspaper product. They raised $750k from Canadian venture capitalists in 1981, to develop computer graphics and CAD/CAM, which they also discontinued. Another $2.2M was raised in 1984 for Chariot, which was discontinued at the end of 1985. Daniel Kukulsky hired as president in 1984 to launch Chariot, replaced in a January 1986 restructuring by Michael Tilson, changing focus to consulting and developing Unix systems for large computer manufacturers. "More than 95 per cent of HCR's business is outside Canada." After three years of development without posting a profit, revenues for fiscal year Nov 1985 – Oct 1986 anticipated (according to Tilson) at $4M with $100k profit. "Five venture capital investors now have a 70 per cent equity interest in the company." including Novacap Investments (Montreal), Ventures West Technologies (Vancouver)
• Bulas, Peter (24 July 1986). "HCR on Track Again After Chariot Fiasco". Computing Canada. Vol. 12, no. 15. p. S1–2. ProQuest 225046284. [After refocusing on Unix, the firm] "experienced the most profitable quarter in its 10-year history; revenues were around $1.4M for the second quarter of the fiscal year ending October 1986." [i.e.: Feb–Apr 1986]
• Chevreau, Jonathan (15 July 1983). "$10-billion Unix industry seen". The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ontario. p. B11. ProQuest 386683671. HCR hosted that week's Unix user conference, which drew about 1600 people in Toronto.

Prose

A few prose notes; just my opinion, none of these are fail-worthy.

I have incorporated all of these into the article, unless otherwise noted.

• and for the consulting and product development work it did on Unix. It seems a little clunky, at the end of the longest sentence of the lead. Can we remove the underlined words so it's easier for readers?
• As such, it was a pioneer Remove As such, we don't want the lead to be unnecessarily wordy.
• which existed until 1996 when the Toronto offices were closed down. Can we remove down? It's not really needed. (For something like this, copyeditors consider the "opposite test". If "closed up" doesn't make any sense, then the "down" in "closed down" probably isn't needed.)
• an associate professor n the Department of Computer Science At some point this lost the i from in.
• who had developed the interactive NewsWhole pagination system for the Toronto Globe & Mail I'm not sure if I've ever heard the title of The Globe and Mail with Toronto included (unlike predecessors The Toronto Mail and Toronto Empire). Especially as it brands itself as a national newspaper. Could this be styled as The Globe and Mail? I believe this was its title at the time.
• Initially Human Computing Resources focused → Human Computing Resources initially focused
• But it also tried to establish a product business → It also tried to establish a product business

I left the 'But' in, per my comment in the original review responses.

Interesting read. One way of looking at the English language is that it has no rules but is a constant evolving negotiation. My qualm here is that is starts a paragraph. Words like but serve to interrupt the reader's train of thought before introducing a new idea. The paragraph break already does that. So it's sort of like putting emphasis on top of emphasis. Also, if someone is skimming the section looking for something in particular, the but at the beginning of the paragraph might be unexpected and confusing. Sort of the rule of least astonishment (and I said there were no rules). My two cents.

• use - the Commodore PET - and for business Replace the hyphens with en-dashes. If you don't have a keyboard shortcut, you can achieve one with – (MOS:DASH)
• The early history of Xenix has a sometimes unclear narrative, but by some accounts HCR had a greater role than just extending what Microsoft had done, as it had to take over the initial porting the AT&T Version 7 Unix after Microsoft was unable to do so. Possibly a word was lost here at some point. Also, as is a little problematic here since it can mean either "because" or "while", which could change the meaning. How about: "but by some accounts HCR had a greater role than extending Microsoft's work, because it had to undertake the initial porting of the AT&T Version 7 Unix which Microsoft was unable to accomplish." There may be a better word than extending.

I added the missing 'of', but didn't change anything else, in part because I'm not sure this actually happened.

• their customer space was in the OEM and VAR markets Spell-out acronyms on first mention, as we are writing for general readers. We don't want them to have to chase links, especially from print copies (MOS:ACRO). "their customer space was in the original-equipment manufacturer (OEM) and value-added reseller (VAR) markets"
• Tilson himself Remove himself, undue emphasis.
• various different 16-bit and 32-bit processors Remove different as redundant
• Unity that ran on top of the VMS operating system on VAX Remove top of.

I left the 'on top of' in, per the discussion in the original review.

Okay, thanks. If you have concerns that something like this in the article is correct but potentially confusing to a general reader, you can always use a footnote for further explanation. (If working towards FA.)

• For ease of use in using the operating system → for operating system ease-of-use or for operating system usability
• provided a more friendlier and customizable interface change to one of: provided a more friendly and customizable interface or provided a friendlier and more customizable interface or provided a more customizable and friendlier interface, or etc.
• HCR also put out several business applications put out → published, released, sold, or somesuch
• There was competition, as other companies were in this area too. Besides Interactive Systems Corporation and SCO, companies doing Unix ports or substantial work with Unix included UniSoft, Microport, and a number of smaller outfits. Besides is a bit informal. I think these sentences can be combined for conciseness. Something like: Competing companies undertaking Unix ports or substantial Unix work included Interactive Systems Corporation, SCO, UniSoft, Microport, and a number of smaller outfits.

I reworded this somewhat, but left it as two sentences because I want it to be a separate paragraph and some editors object to one-sentence paragraphs.

• with the likes of Unix inventors and pioneers Ken Thompson, Brian Kernighan, Samuel J. Leffler, P. J. Plauger, and others. Context tells us that this is an incomplete list, so we don't need and others.
• HCR gave training courses in Unix. They also gave executive seminars describing the importance and impact of Unix at its offices in Toronto, as well as introductory seminars on the subject in various North American cities. → From its Toronto offices, HCR provided Unix training courses and executive seminars on the importance and impact of Unix, and offered introductory Unix seminars at various North American cities.

I hope that's understandable. That's about as thorough as I can go. Not sure if I'll have any more time for this. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for these suggestions, but please do not feel obliged to go further! And thanks just as much for the additional sources you found above, I will be incorporating them into the article shortly. Somehow I missed that ProQuest was available in the WP:LIBRARY, but I have access now and am looking at those sources. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)