Talk:Falcon Northwest

Advertisement

The article is extremely biased and appears to be an advertisement for its products. --209.42.44.132 04:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs changing, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use out the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Alphax ^τεχ 10:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The article doesn't appear particularly biased, the longest paragraph actually describes an incident that doesn't even make the company look bad. Rhodomontade 23:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You're replying to a comment about a very old version of the page. The company's spam has since been cleaned up (as tends to happen naturally, of course, with the Wikipedia). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.161.56 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 16 May 2006.

"Cabling inside is incredibly well organized" that just sounds stupids , it's like "our computer are much better , they have usb ports in the FRONT !"(when that was not common place for example) no I won't edit the page because some zealot will just revert and waste my time , I'm sure I'm supposed to read pages and pages of guideline before I should make any change and I don't want to invest that much time, it's not like I really care about this particular company, they're just your run of the mill highend computer shop for the sucker computerphile market , this page sounds like an ad, some seasoned wikipedia editor should fix it

Well, it's a page about a company that makes high-end no-holds-barred boutique computers. What do you expect exactly? The contents of the article seem a rather accurate description of the company and what they do (at least to me). I'm removing the ad tag until you outline how a article about such a company "should" be. I consider myself impartial here because I don't own one of their machines. I have followed the company through magazine ads, reviews, and other coverage over the past ~13 years though. --Swaaye 02:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Do agree there was quite a bit of stuff that appeared very borderline (at best) in terms of NPOV. A single statement that the company tends toward high-end systems certainly suffices to establish what they do, but that particular adjective doesn't need to appear next to every mention of one of their products. That really does tend to make it read more like ad copy and less like a neutral report. I removed quite a bit of that type of thing. Seraphimblade 21:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok to the guy who complained about the article mentioning the cabling let me ask you a question. Have you ever purchased a computer from Falcon Nw? Have you ever looked inside one at all? If your answer is no to either of those then you absolutely have no idea what you are talking about. Let me tell you first hand that I used to work for Falcon Northwest as a hardware production builder and about 75% of each build is spent organizing the cables in each machine so that the customer can work inside the computer and find parts if they need to contact support for assistance. Their computers will not even leave the production room if the cabling is not incredibly well organized as the article states. Is there anything wrong with putting quality in a PC? Don't believe me that's fine. I will gladly send you pictures of my personal MachV that I built myself just to show you how nicely I cabled it. --Reddyfire 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The company seems to be determined to make this a propaganda page for their products, actively policing information that puts them in a negative light, despite the veracity. They replace such information with outright spam or reviews of questionable verifiability. Vigilence should be taken to ensure this article doesn't become an advertisement. 24.2.149.89 09:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have proof of this? Which edits? Are you talking about content I added? --Swaaye 21:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I wasn't specifically, but if you're coming clean about something, we're all ears. 24.2.149.89 05:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Coming clean? Like, say, admitting that the hundreds of hours I've put into Wikipedia are some sort of propaganda? Don't think so. I think you are reading a bit too much into anonymous edits, probably by people doing Google searches and not liking what they see here about their favorite brand. Just go watch what happens to the Xbox article in a day, for example. Everything I've put into the Falcon NW article are facts about what the business does or has done. It is mostly referenced, too. Although some of what I know is just from reading magazines they've advertised in and been reviewed by over the past 12 or so years.

I'm not sure why some of the editors here are so fascinated and enthused by the negative sensationalism that is actually rather typical of HardOCP. Falcon NW really doesn't have a bad track record, especially if you've been following them since they were the only high performance PC around. Computer Gaming World mag gave the company's product top ratings in nearly every review for most of the '90s. --Swaaye 21:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. 24.2.149.89 00:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

When did I apologize? --Swaaye 18:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No need to be coy. I got the fruit basket, the bath soap, and the towel set with my IP stiched onto it. I appreciate it! 24.2.149.89 02:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FalconNwLogo.png

Image:FalconNwLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of date

This article is both short and out of date. With pictures and references to items long out of production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usaf2222 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Sharing the draft proposed page revision

I'm Kelt Reeves, president of Falcon Northwest Computer Systems. With the help of David King at Ethical Wiki (@CorporateM:) , I'm sharing a draft [1] of proposed revisions to the page to correct outdated and incorrect company and product information. The draft includes updated and enumerated citations. The draft adds a history section, and I've uploaded current product images to Wikimedia Commons.

Seraphimblade - You've previously expressed concerns on the current page and are still active, so if you would be so kind as to review the draft and keep me honest I'd appreciate it. Thanks! @Seraphimblade: Kelt at Falcon (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Kelt contacted me about this because I wrote the article on the 1951 Nimrod computer, which is a bit of a weak connection but whatever. I don't have much personal interest in Falcon Northwest or prebuilt computers in general, gaming or otherwise, but I am mildly interested in ethical CoI editing. So: as a general remark, the current article is pretty bad- it's a fluffy advertisement with poor sourcing. Kelt's draft is much better. That alone is worth swapping it in. I've done some cleanup work on top of it as well, though, mainly around dating the reviews. The article still isn't great- it isn't clear what specific products FN sells (beyond expensive computers with a few named), and reception is a bit scattershot and focused on the last couple of years, but it is a lot better than the current state. --PresN 01:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

recent edit

The article previously said our computers cost "$1,500 to $10,000." Without providing a citation to back it up, an IP editor recently changed the article to say our computers cost "$1,500 to $27,000." However, a closer look at the cited source shows it actually says "prices can reach over $10,000" not up to $10,000 as inferred by the original Wikipedia text. I would like to request changing it to "$1,500 to $10,000 or more." Kelt at Falcon (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Bringing page current

Hi. I am the founder/CEO of Falcon Northwest and therefore have a conflict of interest. The current Reception section hasn't been updated since 2018 and therefore doesn't cover any of the company's current products. I'd like to propose a small addition to add recent product reviews that cover current products. I've prepared a draft as follows:

In 2022, PC Magazine reviewed the Falcon Northwest FragBox, Talon, and Tiki. In each case, the reviewer gave the Falcon Northwest computer a 4.5 out of 5 rating. The reviewer said the computer had good performance, low noise, and good builds, but explained Northwest did not have any budget-friendly options.

References

Pinging @PresN: and @Þjarkur:, who have each helped out with prior requests I made 4 and 2 years ago respectively. Kelt at Falcon (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kelt at Falcon: Tweaked the wording some, but yeah, that seems reasonable. I'm not going to go looking for other reviews to make sure that PCMag is representative, but it's a reasonable review outlet if you're only going to have one, and nothing about it seems out of line with my understanding of how the products are viewed in the market. --PresN 00:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)