Talk:iMac G4

Untitled

Sorry, i removed this G4 computer from the category:Industrial design examples

This computer was not successful enough.

Stef

First off, this computer was not successful enough, according to whom? Secondly since when is product that sells well a prerequisite for an industrial design example? I'm sure you meant no harm (actually I'm just being polite, I'm sure you did, but it is OK, I forgive you) but please do not remove something from a category due to only personal POVTrevorLSciAct 02:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The burden of providing sources should be upon those who think it should be placed in the category. Where is your source? Otherwise claiming it to be an industry design example is personal POV. Mdwh (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No comment, so I'm removing. It occurs to me though that this entire category is a POV magnet - by what criterion is something added to this category? Mdwh (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really important for this article but in case you run into this again, I think one non POV test could be RS that show a product has been used in university level curriculum on industrial design. Czarking0 (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

RAM in this

The RAM is in fact in two separate parts. One is under the motherboard and the other is actually on the motherboard.Fletcherbrian (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to add this fact to the article? If so you can do it yourself "MonkeyWithGlasses44" (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:IMac G4/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 18:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 16:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article as part of the ongoing GAN backlog drive. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

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, as shown by a source spot-check. 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:
· · ·

Initial comments

• There is unlikely any copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported only 20.6% in similarity.
• There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
• The article is stable.
• No previous GA reviews.

General comments

• Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
  • No issues were found in the lede.
  • "15 inch, 17 inch, and 20 inch..." → 15-inch, 17-inch, and 20-inch...
  • There is a missing space at the beginning of the second sentence in the last paragraph of the "Release" section.
  • The rest of the article looks good. I did not find any grammar errors.
• Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
  • Optional: Add alt texts to the images in the article.
  • Optional: I feel like the Specifications section should be somewhere more up in the article. Reception and legacy should be at the bottom.
  • The article complies with the MOS:LEDE, MOS:LAYOUT, and MOS:WTW guidelines. There is no fiction and embedded lists within the article, so I am skipping MOS:WAF and MOS:EMBED.
• Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
  • References section with a {{reflist}} template is present in the article.
  • No referencing issues.
  • Listed references are reliable. Good job on archiving refs.
  • Spotchecked Ref 8, 9, 13, 23, 42, 47, 54, 67, 70–all verify the cited content. AGF on other citations.
  • Optional: Fix the order of references in the text. "[50][38][11]" → "[11][38][50]"
  • Copyvio already checked.
• Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
  • I always like reading articles like this.
  • "although it can also boot into OS 9" Ref 9 mentions the reason, in order to access older Mac software. I feel like this could be added.
  • The article addresses the main aspects, and it stays focused on the topic.
• Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
  • The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
• Checking whether the article is stable.
  • As noted in the initial comments, the article has been stable.
• Checking images.
  • All looks good.

Final comments

@David Fuchs: Overall, a very good article. There are a couple of things to fix. Once this gets addressed, I'll promote the article. The review will be on hold for a week. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey Vacant0, thanks for the review. I believe I've addressed all of the above except the comment about the specifications; at the end is where the wikiproject puts them. I'm not opposed to a different place for it, but I think that's a conversation beyond the scope of this GAN, as it would impact a lot of good and featured content (e.g. Power Mac G4 Cube, PowerBook 100.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. Promoting. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 6 July 2024 (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.