IMac G4 is currently a Computing and engineering good article nominee. Nominated by Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk at 18:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article. Short description: All-in-one personal computer designed, manufactured, and sold by Apple Computer

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Apple Inc. Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance). Museum of Modern Art This article is related to the Museum of Modern Art.Museum of Modern ArtWikipedia:GLAM/Museum of Modern ArtTemplate:WikiProject Museum of Modern ArtMuseum of Modern Art-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

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 POV TrevorLSciAct 02:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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

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) reply