Wikipedia:Featured article review/NeXT/archive1

This is another promotion from the late 2000s that would be quickfailed if reviewed by today standards. Its nominator and the one that promoted it to FA status has been inactive on Wikipedia since 2015, which means I didn't notify them. The problems with this article boil down to the fact that it's not well put together. Uncited statements (even paragraph-long uncited material) abound, there is essential info in its lead (and even quoteboxes) that should be in the body but isn't, and its prose suffers from tech jargon either not elaborated or linked to another article; what is a workstation? "general-purpose DSP chip"? "programming environment standard"? "application layer"? "vector drawing program"? Additionally, it has scant retrospective analysis, which including it would really help its seemingly lackluster Legacy section. Other indicators this needs a copyedit. A subsection "1996–97: purchase by Apple" talks about many things that occurred after that, as late as 2001, meaning its subsection name is blatantly wrong 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAR coordinators: can this be put on hold or removed until the notification period has passed? HumanxAnthro, is there a reason you did not follow the FAR instructions on the two to three week wait after notification? Also, a nominator inactive since 2015 should be notified anyway; they may still follow their talk page or have talk page stalkers with similar content-area interests. Also, there are several other active editors in the edit count tool who could be notified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you said the guidelines were one week after notification, not "two to three." Wait, what? 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn’t say that (and that one should have been removed, too). I asked then if there had been another notification more than a week ago, and Femke mentioned there was one ten days ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's been just more than a week, so we've already passed the notification period, right? I think...? Um.... I'm getting confused, what's going on? 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~On hold~~ The guidance says 'two to three weeks'. DrKay (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restarted. No action on talk. DrKay (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, no action. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC - no engagement. Hog Farm _Talk 03:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose, structure and comprehensiveness. DrKay (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources aside, I'm not set on the sources that are included. These are old, so I may just be insufficiently informed but sites like these look self-published and this looks like a Blogspot blog. Additionally, to show how little this page has been maintained over the last decade, one of the source titles was "The heart of a new machine (frogdesign for NeXT computer)hi" and had been like that for seven years. Delist. This wouldn't pass GAN. Anarchyte (talk • work) 13:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Anarchyte. Significant work needs done, and engagement is minimal. Hog Farm _Talk 17:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Sources are severely lacking. ~ HAL333 02:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "Background" section has a "citation needed" in one of the paragraphs. LucianoTheWindowsFan (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Anarchyte. Link20XX (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NeXT

Review section

FARC section