Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ZX81/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 23:05, 30 January 2011 [1].

ZX81[edit]

ZX81 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 30th anniversary of the ZX81's launch falls on 5 March this year. In advance of the anniversary, I am nominating this for featured article following a complete rewrite and expansion of the article. I hope to get the article to FA status by the time of the anniversary so that it can be nominated for the home page on 5 March. It was a DYK lead article on 7 January (and got over 18,900 hits, the second highest for January so far), so it is likely to prove a very popular home page article. I have used existing featured articles as the model for this one - I was surprised to find that only one other home computer article (Macintosh Classic) has featured article status, so this appears to be an under-represented topic area. I had great difficulty working out how the reference formatting is supposed to work, so I would be particularly grateful if people could check it for errors. Prioryman (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

  • Comment. There's clearly a serious problem with the number of copyrighted images in this article that needs to be addressed. Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would help if you could say which images you see as a problem... Prioryman (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say that I had a problem with any of them, simply the number of them; there are far too many. Malleus Fatuorum 06:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you suggest what the right number would be, in that case? Prioryman (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You might find it helpful to consult WP:NFCC. In particular, as many of these machines still exist it's not plausible to claim that there are no free equivalents. You cannot, for instance, justify using the cover of a magazine unless you're writing about that magazine. Malleus Fatuorum 13:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • In addition to the issues with WP:NFCC, it would also be worth looking at issues with photographing copyrighted 3D items and licensing them as free, and taking material from Flickr and uploading it to WP with an incompatible license from that given to it by the author Fasach Nua (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you're referring to File:ZX81 concept design.jpg, might I point out the OTRS ticket referenced on the image page in which the author has agreed to licence it under a compatible licence? As for "photographing copyrighted 3D items", how do you expect an article about a consumer product to work without any images of said product? (Compare Macintosh Classic and PowerBook 100). I could point to dozens of featured articles, including tomorrow's, that include photographs of "copyrighted 3D items" under free licences. I don't believe this is a reasonable objection and I haven't seen anything in Wikipedia's copyright policy that would justify it. If I have overlooked something, please direct me to a statement somewhere on Wikipedia that covers this issue. Prioryman (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • That image on Flickr is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0, so it's not clear why an OTRS ticket was thought necessary anyway. But the image uploaded to Commons is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0. Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually if you check Flickr that image (here) is licensed as CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0, hence the need for an OTRS ticket to confirm that it can be used under CC-BY-SA 3.0. I requested, and the author agreed, the change of licence so that it could be used on Wikipedia. Prioryman (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • (added) I came across this page on Wikimedia Commons, which is clearly a directly comparable example: "Current Commons policy allows images of vehicles on the basis that the 3D shape of a vehicle will not normally be entitled to copyright protection" (my emphasis). The page does not mention computers but the principle would clearly be the same. Prioryman (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • To be uploaded to commons an image needs to be free in it's country of origin and the US, it is possible the images are fine, but the origin needs to be included and it needs to annotated on what legal basis the images are deemed to be free Fasach Nua (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Every free image in the article already has its origin and licence annotated, as shown in the summary table below. As you can see, the contributors have all released them under free licences. Prioryman (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image Origin Licence
File:Sinclair ZX81.jpg User:Journey234 Public domain
File:The Mighty ZX-81.jpg Mikey Walters (Flickr) CC-BY-SA 2.0
File:ZX81 Interface.jpg User:Journey234 Public domain
File:SinclairExecutive-01.jpg User:MaltaGC GFDL
File:Sinclair - Science of Cambridge MK14.jpg Steve Elliott (Flickr) CC-BY-SA 2.0
File:ZX80.jpg Daniel Ryde GFDL
File:ZX81 Leiterkarte.jpg User:Journey234 Public domain
File:ZX81 concept design.jpg Rick Dickinson (Flickr) CC-BY-SA 3.0
File:ZX81 kit.jpg User:Smaddison CC-BY-SA 3.0
File:Sinclair ZX81 Setup.jpg Mike Cattell (Flickr) CC-BY-SA 2.0
File:ZX81 - rampack - ZX Printer.jpg Carlos Pérez Ruiz (Flickr) CC-BY-SA 2.0
File:Zx81-timex-manipulated.jpg User:Carlb Public domain
File:Microdigital TK85 with joystick.JPG User:Henrique Vicente CC-BY-SA 3.0
  • One more point for Fasach Nua on the "copyrighted 3D items" issue. I've found that this is specifically addressed at [2], which does specifically mention the copyright status of "my computer case" and states that it is exempt from copyright protection. I hope that settles this issue. Prioryman (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This example states that the case in US law, and as of yet US does not extend beyond it's internationally recognised boundaries, at this point we have a number of images taken in unknown countries, and with unknown copyright status. Please state the origin of these images and on what legal basis they are deemed to be free Fasach Nua (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, Wikipedia is hosted in the US, so US copyright law necessarily applies. Wikimedia Commons' policy on such images is clear as I have quoted it to you but you appear to be going well beyond that. I have seen nothing in the copyright policy of either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that would support your approach. The contributors of the images have all affirmed that they took the images themselves and have explicitly licensed them under free licences or released them into the public domain. It is neither realistic nor reasonable to demand that the writers of articles on Wikipedia should have to independently verify every image on Wikimedia Commons, particularly when some of the images in question are years old and contributors may have moved on. Please direct me to a policy statement that states the existence of such a requirement. Prioryman (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Verifiability Fasach Nua (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_non-US_copyright_law Fasach Nua (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this question would be better discussed over at Wikimedia Commons, frankly. I'll post a link. Prioryman (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a commons issue. Don't waste your time here with it. I'm not sure if any jurisdiction considers photos of computers a copyright violation. - hahnchen 22:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that if Fasach Nua's position was adopted it would effectively require the deletion of pretty much every image of a consumer item from Wikimedia Commons, as uploaders aren't asked to record their countries of origin. That info certainly isn't provided on the thousands of existing pictures of such items. That strikes me as a rather radical proposal. You're right though, it's well beyond the scope of this page. Prioryman (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a request for clarification here on Wikimedia Commons. Prioryman (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You will definitely need a fair use rationale on File:3D-monster-maze-T-rex-2-steps-away.png for use on ZX81. - hahnchen 22:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I had missed that. I've added it now. Prioryman (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • 1c/2c Sources Review: Major work required Do we have a peer review specifically for citation quality for A/GA/FA grade articles? If we do, this could do with that. Generally, you're inconsistent in the use of commas and fullstops after particular elements of citations (ie, titles, authors, etc) particularly in Other Sources. I'm more than a bit concerned about the use of primary sources (flickr pictures?), newspaper articles from the time in a history of technology article (this, a little more forgivable). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Flickr reference (one image only, not multiple "pictures") is to a depiction and description by the designer of the ZX81, with whom I have been in touch, of an early design of the machine. He's donated the image in question to Wikipedia to use in this article. It's a primary source but used in a way that WP:PRIMARY allows: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Could you explain why you see the use of contemporary news articles as a problem? Prioryman (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • References, Other Sources: Please cite in full such that other wikipedians can locate the documents. Place of publication. Type of publication (pamphlet) (brochure) (advertising poster) etc. With untitled documents such as "Brochure. Sinclair Research. Undated, circa March 1981" it is normal to include the first line of material, ie "Other Sources: Please cite in full…" if citing this paragraph as an untitled ephemera.
      • I've added a title from the first page of the brochure and types of publication to the others. Prioryman (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • References, News reports: If the article was written by Staff on the byline, then the author is Staff. If the article is assumed to be Staff due to no byline, the author is [Staff]. ""Sinclair's tinkering talent". " has no author (probably [Staff]). A volume number is required for "Goodwin, Simon N. (January 1988)."
    • References, Books. Where a place of publication is likely to be unknown to the reader, please state the US State or Nation-State of the location, ie "Laing, Gordon (2004). Digital retro. Lewes: " ; Morris, Ben (2007). ; Thomasson, Don (1983).
    • Notes: Dates are inconsistent ("Financial Times (6-3-1981)" ; "Thomasson 1983" ; "New Scientist, 7 February 1980") Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've cited news sources in the Notes using a short date/month/year format, where appropriate, and month/year where a date does not exist. Books are cited using years exclusively. News dates are spelled out in full in the References section. The New Scientist reference you mention slipped through the cracks; I've corrected that. Prioryman (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig/External Link check - no dabs; 1 dead external link - this is doa. --PresN 19:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately the website appears to be down, though it was certainly working the last time I looked at it. You can find the same page in the Google cache at [3]. Prioryman (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just found that they had changed the URL over Christmas. I've updated it and confirmed that it now works. Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Confirming as requested that the link issue is fixed. --PresN 21:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Text[edit]

  • Comments. Leaving aside the question mark over the number of non-free images, which has not yet been satisfactorily addressed IMO, I have a few further comments, which I'll break down by section as I read through the article:
Lead
  • "The machine had no moving parts – not even a power switch – but used a touch-sensitive membrane keyboard for manual input. These proved to be serious limitations ....". What is "these" referring to in that second sentence?
  • Reworded: "The machine had no moving parts – not even a power switch – but used a touch-sensitive membrane keyboard for manual input. The ZX81's limitations ...." Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such limitations, however, achieved the objective of keeping the cost of the machine low and making it relatively easy to use." I'll buy the point about keeping the cost down, but not about making the machine "relatively easy to use". The lack of a graphics processor made it difficult to maintain a decent display, the lack of memory made it difficult to program, the keyboard made typing difficult ...
  • Fair point! Reworded: "Such limitations, however, achieved Sinclair's objective of keeping the cost of the machine as low as possible." Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... rather than the preserve of businesspeople ...". I don't think that "businesspeople" is a word is it? It's not in my dictionary anyway.
  • Plural of "businessperson", which certainly is in the dictionary. It's widely used and understood, and Wikipedia even has a Category:Businesspeople. So I don't think it presents any problem with comprehension. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Features
  • "Two 3.5 mm jacks connect the ZX81 to the EAR (output) and MIC (input) sockets of an audio cassette recorder, to which data can be saved or loaded at a rate of 250 baud." "To which data can be ... loaded" doesn't make sense, the sentence needs to be recast.
  • Reworded: ".... enabling data to be saved or loaded at a rate of 250 baud". Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ULA chip, described by the ZX81 manual as the "dogsbody" of the system, has a number of key functions that other contemporary computers shared between multiple chips and integrated circuits." One of either "other" or "contemporary" is redundant.
  • Reworded as "competing computers", since that ties it more closely to its direct competitors (VIC-20, TRS-80 etc). Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is each element in the bulleted list suffixed by a semicolon?
  • That's the way I was taught to do lists; short list items with a comma at the end, longer and more complex list items with a semicolon at the end. APA style, if I remember rightly? Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ZX81's built-in RF modulator can output a video picture to either a UHF (PAL) television (used in the UK, Australia, and most western European countries except France) or a VHF (NTSC) television (used in the US and Canada), although this has to be pre-set either at the factory or during the assembly of the kit." The tense here is strange ("this has to be pre-set at the factory") as there no longer is a factory building these machines.
  • True, but (somewhat amazingly) you can still buy ZX81 kits. I've reworded it, anyway: "This could be pre-set either at the factory or during the assembly of the kit." Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the ZX81 and its predecessor, the ZX80, both have a significant drawback in the way that they handle visual output." The word "both" is clearly redundant here, and I'm not sure why the sentence begins with "however", as it doesn't really seem to be elaborating on what went before in any way.
  • Reworded: "Both the ZX81 and its predecessor, the ZX80, ..." Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ZX81's designers adopted an improved approach, involving the use of two modes called SLOW and FAST." So each of the two modes was called "SLOW and FAST"?
  • Added "respectively" to the end of that sentence. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... in practice the speed difference between FAST and SLOW modes depends on what computation is being done". Is that what computation or how much computation?
  • What computation. It specifically depends on what task you're asking the machine to do. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still not quite following this. Computation is a task; what do you mean by a "task" here? Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The specific example I'm quoting is of a series of tests carried out by a magazine that made the ZX81 and a comparator carry out standardised routines, with the time taken to complete them being recorded. The difference in speed between FAST and SLOW is not constant but depends on what routine is being run. Prioryman (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... The same pin on the ULA is used to provide both the video signal and the tape output". Once again, the word "both" is clearly redundant.
  • Reworded: "used to handle the video signal as well as the tape output ..." Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In any case, the ULA cannot maintain the display during SAVE and LOAD operations ...". What is "in any case" telling us?
  • Replaced "in any case" with "As well as this," - i.e. it's a combination of factors that causes the screen disruption. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Simply displaying a full screen takes up 792 bytes ...". It's not the displaying that takes up memory.
  • Actually it is. This was one of the peculiarities of the ZX81 - the display is written directly from the same area of memory that holds program code, variables etc. As the memory fills up, increasingly weird things start happening to the display. It's possible to get the machine into a state where it doesn't have enough memory to display an out of memory error! I'll elaborate on this in the article. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. As you say, it was the memory for the display that took up 792 bytes, not the act of displaying. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The amount of memory used for the screen display depends on how much there is on the screen. If you display a full screen - i.e. one with every character in the 32 x 22 grid occupied - then that takes up 792 bytes. Note that if you then clear the screen the amount of memory taken up by the display shrinks to only a handful of bytes. In other words, the act of displaying the screen causes the amount of free memory to decrease substantially. The amount of memory used for the display is in effect optimised on the fly. Ideally, you'd display as little on the screen as possible so as to maximise the amount of memory available for your program. Prioryman (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you're saying that once the contents of the memory have been displayed then that memory can immediately be reused, which I very much doubt, then I'm afraid I can't agree with you. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it, it can indeed be reused, though doing so isn't recommended because of the effect it has on the machine (parsing breaks down, bits of the display disappear, etc). The mechanics of the ZX81 display were very peculiar even by contemporary standards. I'll add some more info on this topic to the article; see what you think of it then. Prioryman (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the rear of the ZX81 is an edge connector ...". Already told us that there's an edge connector at the back of the machine, right at the start of this section.
  • Removed the first mention of the edge connector. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Memory was conserved to a certain extent by representing entire BASIC commands as one-byte tokens ...". My own memory may be faulty here, but didn't the ZX81 always store BASIC commands as one-byte tokens? The way this is written makes it look as if that was an innovation introduced in the 1K ZX Chess program. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded to make this less confusing: "The ZX81 conserved its memory to a certain extent ..." Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I cannot identify current note 1 (Financial Times) in the list of references - if there is an author listed in the references, the short ref should be listed under THAT name, not the newspaper, since you're alphabetizing the references by author.
    • I've revised the news links to provide the author, where an author is known. Where the authorship is not attributed (i.e. the "[Staff]" references) I've left the references as the name of the publication. Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current note 4 - WHICH sinclair research item is referred to here?
    • The Sinclair Research website. I've made this clear. Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current note 8 (New Scientist) has the same issues as current ref 1. In fact, a LOT of your notes have this issue - all of the newspaper references. When you use a shortened note format you must make it simple for the reader to link the note to the correct reference, currently this is not possible.
  • This http://www.crashonline.org.uk/ site appears to be a fan site that is hosting the various issues. It is not clear that the site has permission to host these articles so they should not be linked to.
  • Same concern with http://www.sincuser.f9.co.uk/.
  • The Krotoski ref lacks a publication or publisher
  • What makes http://spong.com/feature/10109995/Interview-Industry-Legend-Charles-Cecil a high quality reliable source?
    • It's a British online computer magazine. They have an editorial team, and the senior staff are a mixture of journalists and computer industry professionals (generally ex-Future Publishing and Team17 Software people). See [4]. Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.mcmanus.co.uk/content/collections/database/sinclair-zx81-home-computer-mapsoft-keyboard-attached deadlinked on me
    • Fixed. Turns out they'd changed the URL over Christmas. Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/9574086@N02/1221488047/ is NOT a published reliable source
    • This is covered by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources. Specifically, the source is an expert (in fact, the designer of the ZX81 - about as definitive a source as you could get) talking about his early work on the machine. It is not self-serving, it does not relate to any third party, living or otherwise, the article is not based primarily on this or any other self-published source and there is no doubt about its authenticity (there is even an OTRS ticket confirming it). It is a minimal use of a self-published source for the purposes of documenting the design process, for which the author was personally responsible. Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaving these others out for reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I know there's some discussion of images above which I have not read, but I am unclear on why precisely either of the images currently tagged as non-free (File:ZX81 Sinclair Research advert.jpg and File:3D-monster-maze-T-rex-2-steps-away.png) are being used. The rationales are rather vague- the advert is particularly large for a non-free file, and so is going to warrant a very good reason for use, and the game from which the screenshot is taken is mentioned only briefly (while its graphics are not really mentioned at all). J Milburn (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can probably find an alternative for the screenshot. Would the advert be more acceptable if the image was smaller? Prioryman (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "To illustrate an article about the Sinclair ZX81, specifically relating to the Sinclair Research marketing campaign" does not meet nfcc Fasach Nua (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've replaced File:3D-monster-maze-T-rex-2-steps-away.png with a freely-licensed image. This leaves the advert as the last remaining non-free image. I'll add some additional text to the article to strengthen the discussion of the advertising and revise the rationale for the advert. Prioryman (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is now done. I've reduced the size of the advert image by 50% to address the concern about size. I've added a chunk of new commentary on the advertising campaign, with specific reference to the advert shown in the image, and I've written a more focused rationale: "To accompany critical commentary on Sinclair Research's marketing campaign for the ZX81, with reference to the layout, design, typography, language and purpose of this display advertisement." Prioryman (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks for dealing the NFC issues, but skim-reading the article, I'm a little concerned about the tone, which doesn't feel the most neutral. Phrases like "often parents who had become fascinated", "One of the more bizarre software products", "A dramatic illustration of the ZX81's explosive popularity" and "Reviews of the ZX81 highlighted the great value for money" strike me as a little non-neutral. J Milburn (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've paraphrased sources in some places, so some non-neutral language might have crept in. I'll do a re-read of the article and see where I can weed out such language. Prioryman (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/ZX81/archive1&oldid=1138476049"