IBM ThinkPad 701 was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 11, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Hello!
This is an interesting article on a worthy subject! I have a few suggestions before undertaking a GAC. First, there is a lot of clunky language in here. My suggestion is to read the piece aloud, beginning to end, as that's an excellent way to catch grammatical errors and inelegant phrasings.
The table of specifications is a bit hard to read and unattractive. Is this a standard format or something you developed individually?
The placement of the video is currently awkward. It might serve better close to the keyboard section it is meant to illustrate. Also, a description of the video would be helpful.
I'd like to see more on the genesis of the 701. Was it build around the keyboard concept, or was there always going to be a 486-based IBM laptop in this era, and the butterfly came later?
You mention the 760, but is it actually a version of the 701 or just the next model that came out?
In the infobox, is there a series parameter where you can indicate which model series came before and after the 701?
That's what I have for now. Let's shoot for B class and then go for GAC. :) -- Neopeius ( talk) 13:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: RecycledPixels ( talk · contribs) 21:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I will be reviewing this article. RecycledPixels ( talk) 21:41, 19 July 2021 (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. | Prose quality falls short of well written. Entire article needs to be copyedited by the primary author or by a third party. Samples of difficult to understand language: "The concept of the keyboard was first developed as a photocopy of a keyboard in spring 1993" (what does that mean?), "The overall design language was by Richard Sapper." (no explanation of what overall design language is or how it affects the laptop), "The IBM legal department did not allow the name of living creatures for products. It was part of the subnotebook series like the ThinkPad 500, but they did not want to attach the same name to this model due to bad sales of the previous 500 model." (The IBM legal department didn't want the model to be associated with the Thinkpad 500?), and the "Marketing" subsection in the Background section essentially contradicts the "Naming" subsection. Just a smattering of poor grammar: "The sale was from March 1995 until later that year.", "The 701 was the most sold laptop in 1995 and has received 27 design awards, is shown in museums and has been featured in movies", "The 701C was outgrown of a collaboration between the manufacturing facility in Raleigh and development at the Yamato Facility." The "Further developments" section is a random collection of facts assembled into a paragraph. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | 1. MOS:LEAD: The lead is on the brief size, but adequately summarizes the article's current contents. The prose is a bit poor. I am not sure that having a passing appearance in the movies listed in the article rise to the level of "has been featured in movies" and the article does not elaborate on how the laptop played such a major part in the films to have that mention. 2. MOS:LAYOUT:No concerns. 3. MOS:WTW: Some unsupported attributions ("has been described") and puffery in the "Discontinuation" section ("innovative features"). 4. WP:WAF: Does not apply. 5. Embedded Lists: No issues. | |
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. | References are provided using appropriate citation formats. | |
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). | In-line citations are from reliable sources. No major issues with missing citations on facts that are likely to be a source of contention. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | OR not an issue that I have observed. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Manual and automated searches have not turned up any issues with copyright violations or plagiarism, although I do not have access to the Sams book, which is cited heavily in this article. AGF that there is no plagiarism from that source. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Some clarification needed tags in the article; one from May 2021, and three that I just added. Other questions are left unanswered. Why was the product discontinued at the end of 1995 if it was the most sold laptop in 1995? The confusion about the butterfly naming and the legal department that I mentioned above is a source of confusion. A better description of the product aside from its keyboard, which was obviously a notable feature of the laptop, is needed. How was it positioned against its competitors? Why were the DX4 models so much cheaper than the DX2 models? | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | "In popular culture" section offers a couple of mentions of times the product was spotted in various movies, with the description that the product was "featured" in these movies, but does not explain the cultural significance of the product in those movies. Refer to the WP:IPC essay for more guidance on this. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | NPOV not an issue. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Article is stable and is not the subject of an edit war or content dispute. | |
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. | Three images in the article, all appropriately and believably tagged with copyright tags. No fair use content. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The relevance of the photo of a 701 next to an ASUS Eee escapes me. I don't know exactly what this photo is trying to show and the caption doesn't help. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Needs further refining in order to meet the GA requirements. Feel free to add comments or responses below this table, or add to the lines within the table, possibly using italics or bold to distinguish it from my text. I will leave this open for a while if you would like to make the suggested changes immediately, otherwise take your time to make the changes and renominate it at a later time. RecycledPixels ( talk) 23:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC) |
@
RecycledPixels: The book does not specify where the legal threat came from, only that it was a supercomputer. Would it be appropriate to link to
BBN Butterfly or would that be
WP:OR?
PhotographyEdits (
talk) 14:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
@ RecycledPixels: I was also thinking about improving the further developments paragraph, which you criticized because it's a bunch of random facts assembled into a paragraph. But I think that's the essence of such a paragraph, to list everything that happened to this laptop model, after it went EOL. All statements uses reliable sources. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 17:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I've opened a technical request to move this page to IBM ThinkPad 701C. 701C is the model name used by IBM and the general public, so I think it is more fitting. TheForgottenKing ( talk) 04:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Not sure if they should be added back, but backing them up here for a while at least:
PhotographyEdits ( talk) 12:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)