- Warren 02:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Reply Sounds great! I'll just keep doing my normal cleanup type stuff and hopefully this will be an FA soon! - Mike | Trick or Treat 22:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Reply The Corporate affairs lead-section is terrible! None of it is about corporate affairs. We could also submit to Wikipedia:Peer review and get some perspective from other editors. I'll do some of this work myself in the coming days. That is to say, I should be able to read the article as it is now, in 2025, and not encounter meaningless temporal terms like "recently", or speculation about the future.
#Xstand mac unable to load the page full
We have a separate article for the full history, so let's be razor-sharp and focus on all the important stuff, without dragging the reader down with little details like when revisions of computers were released or other contextually irrelevant things when discussing the history of the company as a whole. The history section should be cut down in size.This is a well-known, historically important technology company with a 30-year history, and for an article of this size, a solid four paragraphs covering all the major aspects should suffice.
#Xstand mac unable to load the page how to
Anybody interested in collaborating to get this up to FA status? Any suggestions on how to do so? - Mike | Trick or Treat 23:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Reply I'd love to see this get to FA status! Here's my list of things I think we ought to look at: I know that my preivous nom was very premature, but I think that the article is vastly improved since then. I don't think it's ready yet, but like Microsoft I think that Apple has an FA in it. There are a lot of problems with Apple products. I agree and ask motion to expand section. Andacar 06:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Reply Has somebody deliberately left a criticism section out? There's one in many other similar articles. Yes, for fairness, Apple, much like Microsoft, requires a Criticism section.- Zeeboid 22:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Reply I tend to agree, Apple can be criticized for a lot of things, from enviromental issues (the iSight was banned from the European Union) to lack of expanded support options (next-day support etc) to their habit of never releasing information about future products in advance. It was better than anything at the time, but it also cost more.
The article cites NuBus for being proprietary. For instance, the "Cadillac"+closed Mac approach led to higher prices, on the other hand it also led to better technology and end-user experience. The ideal criticism should state the issue in question, why one side thinks it's bad, and if there's any defense, why the other side thinks not.
Of course, any editor may challenge or re-word badly written or un-sourced statements, and if no one can supply references, delete the corresponding claim. While I like my Powerbook, IF it's typical for corporate entries at wikipedia to have a criticisms section, Apple should have one too.
Why isn't there a section for this? Many people have issues with Apple, and seeing as there is one on the microsoft entry, makes me wonder why this hasn't been brought up before.
0 kommentar(er)
