Talk:Systime Computers/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 04:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try this again—and do it right.

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. 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:
· · ·

The article is focused, stable, neutral and well referenced, but I have copy and image-related concerns.

Copy revisions

Origins of company

He also did some hardware sales work, and realized that few of the customers he was selling to actually understood the capabilities of the computers they were buying. Two things here: there shouldn't be a comma (the two parts are not independent sentences), and I think the hanging preposition here doesn't read well. (Also, if this is British English, why not realised?) I'd probably reword part of that as few of the customers to whom he was selling.
with Gow's sales abilities that in 1974, — add comma after "that"

Period of rapidly increasing growth

antipated → anticipated
in the UK and Holland, and made a push to sell it in the United States as well — see first critique. What helps is if you separate the sentences by removing ", and" in your head. Is "made a push to sell it in the United States as well" a complete sentence? No, so there shouldn't be a comma between the two sentences.

New facility and changes of management

...new industrial potential in Northern England and the company... — now here, you do need a comma.
organising a flotation, but now — and you don't need one here.
So instead, in March 1983 it was announced — not a fan of the tone of "so instead". perhaps Instead, in March 1983, it was announced would work better.
The two companies had had existing business dealings, as Systime bought many Control Data peripheral devices to include in its full systems, and the recapitalisation of Systime was completed in June 1983. — Split sentence after "full systems".
And they sponsored a Tyrrell 012 car — merge this with the preceding sentence, so there isn't a sentence that does not start with "and".

Legal actions filed by DEC

Digital's United Kingdom subsidiary which sought — comma after "subsidiary"

Charges of violating export control restrictions

disguise as jukeboxes — "disguised"
some of these allegations had made — had been made, I take it?
And despite COCOM-based — drop the "and"
But the role of the exports issue was — consider a way to word this sentence to not start with "but"

Further decline and initiatives in software

Now, as Computergram International stated, "a mere shadow of its former self," what remained of Systime decided... — I'd reword. Now, what remained of Systime—"a mere shadow of its former self", as Computergram International described it—decided...

Dissolution of company and legacy

The largest of these — this section has not yet mentioned the breakup of Systime's units into separate companies, so the object of "these" is unclear.
as a subsidiary, then during 2014 the name effectively went out of use — change to as a subsidiary; during 2014, the name effectively went out of use
collections and an example — add comma after collections
'Leeds to Innovation' — named exhibitions are italicized per MOS

I have made changes for all of these comments and suggestions. And thank you for the 'What helps is if you ...' comma guidance – I will definitely try to use it on future articles.

Other notes

Images

I'm not convinced of the connection of the Dewsbury Road image to the topic if the depicted area is several blocks from where the company started up.
The logo is fair use and correctly tagged.
The fair use image is correctly tagged. Its claim to meeting WP:NFCC#8 is the presence of Princess Anne, demonstrating the hoopla and reputation Systime was earning at its peak. However, there is one concern. It appears that the only time the image was publicly uploaded to the internet was on Pinterest, where it was allegedly taken from a private-only Systime Ning alumni group. We need to be able to track down the original source for fair use: see WP:NFCC 10c. I don't know how feasible this is for you, but we need to find that source or else the image may have to be removed. There might have to be some real tracking down to be able to include this, and that invite-only Ning group is a big obstacle. Which is quite a shame.
The Iron Curtain photo is also somewhat tenuous, but the importance of export controls to the company probably makes it relevant, in my book.

Regarding the Dewsbury Road image, I think it has value because it gives the flavor of the area they started in – it shows that it was not in city centre but also not in a completely isolated area. And there is a visible 'Leeds' sign in it, which none of the other images have. I realize it's not perfect, but it's hard to find usable images for articles about companies that existed in the pre-Internet, pre-digital camera age. So I feel strongly that this image should stay in.

Regarding the Princess Anne image, as I read NFCC#10, there is no absolute requirement to track down the original source for fair use. The top-level WP:NFCC page has the phrase "where possible" in it, and the supplemental WP:NFCP#Sourcing guideline says that identification of the original source of a non-free image is strongly encouraged but that completeness is not required. In particular, "Lacking a source is not grounds for media removal, but if the nature of the media file is disputed, the lack of a source may prevent the file from being retained." I have modified the image page to better explain where the image comes from, as far as it can be traced at the moment. But as I understand it, there is no mandatory requirement to track down the original photographer or copyright holder.

Summary

I'm putting on a 7-day hold to address the copy issues and probably removing the Dewsbury Road image. You may need to remove the Princess Anne image if tracking down the original source will take longer than 7 days. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: Thanks very much for undertaking this review. My responses are above. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wasted Time R: Thanks for making the copy corrections; hopefully the trick helps you with other pages in general. That's a fair reading of NFCP (and one I support), and I now understand the utility of the Dewsbury Road image to the page (and totally get the difficulty of finding good images for older topics!). I'm going to pass the article for GA. Glad I was able to get this page reviewed after nearly 7 months! Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: Thanks very much! Wasted Time R (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]