I've been working on this one for a few months. Here's a link to the peer review. This article has been classed as a "Good article". Includes 25 footnotes, reliable sources. Has also been copy-edited. If there are any problems that prevent you from supporting this article, please do post a comment and I'll try to fix it. Thanks! — Wackymacs 14:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article seems complete by probably needs a copyedit by a fresh eye. For example in "Software" the word 'also' is used quite alot. Also, the article seems to have too many 2/3 sentence paragraphs which could easily be combined. - Tutmosis 15:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I forgot to mention, sometimes the article assumes the reader has background knowledge of the topic. Example would be, in "Early history" the article assumes the reader has knowledge of who Steve Jobs is and his background with Apple. - Tutmosis 15:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have fixed the things you mentioned, but it still needs a fresh copy-edit, which I cannot do, but I'm sure someone else can. — Wackymacs 18:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my issues brought up here and on nominator's talk page were dealt with. I think the article now meets the criteria. - Tutmosis 19:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. It really needs a good copyediting and prose check, as the middle in particular reads like a list, which doesn't work well. I also suggest using a non-depreciated public domain tag. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you explain further what exactly reads like a list? I went through it and didn't notice anything in particular. Also, what do you mean by "non-depreciated public domain tag". Thanks. — Wackymacs 18:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Essentially, the whole middle section, when I left the comment, read more like a bunch of bullet points rather than an article. "In 1987, this happened." New para: "In 1989, this happened." The prose still needs help, but it's better already. As for the public domain tag, see, for instance, Image:Premier serveur Web.jpeg, which says on the tag "Note: This tag is obsolete! Don't use this generic template - please use instead..." with a list of better tags. The rest of the images look okay, with the exception of Image:NeXTSTEP_desktop.jpg, which I'm somewhat tentative regarding the fair use rationale (you never discuss the appearance of the desktop, which makes me question the fair use need for a picture of it). I could be wrong on the latter, and I'll retract that if someone corrects me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose has been improved. Public domain tag on the image has been changed. Fair use rationale added to the NeXTSTEP screenshot. - NeXTSTEP is mentioned in the article several times, technically it does not have a "Desktop" like other OSes (such as Mac OS X or Windows), it's just that whoever uploaded the image named it wrong. — Wackymacs 21:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I'll retract my oppose. Looks better, I still think it could use another good one-over, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Further changes have been made in relation to the prose and quality of writing.. — Wackymacs 17:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose Weak Support: Per Badlydrawnjeff, but not as strong to say that it is a full oppose. Needs in general to be longer. Leave a message on my talk page when you've fixed this and I'll gladly make the weak oppose a Support. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 18:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Badlydrawnjeff has withdrawn his oppose, the things he mentioned have been fixed. Length isn't currently an issue - what more do you think the article should say? I need some more specifics from you to be able to increase the article's length. — Wackymacs 17:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article slightly expanded. — Wackymacs 17:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure what is wrong with this article. To be vague, I just don't like it. Not in an opinionate POV way, but the prose didn't really stick to me as compelling. Hope this is good enough. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 23:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uh that doesn't really help me... Any specifics that strike you as needing a change? "I just don't like it" isn't really to do with the FA criteria... Thanks for the Support vote. — Wackymacs 11:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I like the length (it wasn't too short or too long), good reference section, good images--Weatherman1126 (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Well written article that holds a user's interest. Plus, the topic has a pretty broad audience. Tomhormby 05:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a lot of background information to the article. Especially on the feature creep. Tomhormby 03:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I read this article a little while back and it's fantastic. Good work! - Mike | Talk 05:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Please ensure that you comply with WP:FN. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 11:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article already complies with that. Please clarify, give examples. — Wackymacs 16:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citation goes straight after the punctuation without any spaces in between. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 19:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. — Wackymacs 20:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • By me. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 03:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It's pretty well referenced until the last two sections, which contain a total of six unreferenced paragraphs. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 03:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added references to the last two sections. — Wackymacs 19:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, so the references are in pretty good shape now. We've ticked the boxes, but the article is not brilliant yet:

1. The lede needs work to give a better idea of the way the business and technology worked - was NeXTstep the only OS to run on the NeXT boxes? Which operating systems did it run on when it became a framework? Which hardware platforms did it run on before? It's okay for the lede to be a few sentences longer to give this additional information, and anything else that seems relevant to know early on.
2. The sections entitled "hardware" and "software" need to be rethought. They're non-descriptive and bland. I think "computers" and "operating system" would be progress, but there could be even better headers yet to be found. Make me want to feverishly rush down the page to find out what happened - write some brilliant prose! Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not brilliant prose. From the first paragraph:
  • "In addition to its hardware, NeXT developed the NeXTSTEP operating system, later sold for other computer processors as OPENSTEP, competing against Windows 95." Awkward and hard to understand.
  • "NeXT's software was used as the foundation for Mac OS X,[2] although Apple made significant updates to incorporate modern features from BSD variants, in particular NetBSD and FreeBSD." Is this much detail necessary for the lead?
  • I have fixed other minor problems with the first paragraph, but I shouldn't have to do this for you. --Ideogram 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed what you mentioned. — Wackymacs 15:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would prefer you go through the entire text looking for problems of this kind instead of having me do it for you. --Ideogram 15:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article has already been copy-edited several times, at least twice by myself. If you point out anything else that strikes you as bad prose, I'll be glad to fix it the best I can. — Wackymacs 17:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll do it Tomhormby 17:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition to its hardware, NeXT developed the NeXTSTEP operating system, later retooled as a framework capable of running on several different operating systems, competing against Windows NT and the upcoming Cairo, an object-oriented version of Windows NT." Awkward, hard to read, and too much detail.
  • "NeXT's software was later used as the foundation for Mac OS X,[2] although several updates were made to incorporate modern features." Updates to OS X?
  • "Apple co-founder Steve Jobs' was at the time head of Apple's SuperMicro division, which was responsible for Macintosh and Lisa development, failed to release upgraded versions of the Macintosh and most of the Macintosh Office.[1]" This sentence is grammatically incorrect.

I'm sorry, I can't put this much time into any one FAC. Please get back to me after a better copyedit. --Ideogram 17:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I am bothered by the omission in this article of any discussion of the reason NeXT was an important (although unsuccessful) computer company. It had a reputation of being a innovative & pioneering company that embraced, if it didn't define, state-of-the-art technology, & attracted something of a cult around it. If one reads between the lines, this can be seen: NeXT embraced cutting-edge hardware like the latest CPUs (yes, once upon a time, 486 & 68xxx processors were cutting edge) & developed NuBus technology; NeXTSTEP was an object-oriented opoerating system based on a Mach microkernel. (This omission is even more troubling if one looks at related articles, where NeXT's innovation is often metnioned, e.g. NuBus & Steve Jobs.) While Jobs is well known for his "personal reality-distortion field", & NeXT was clearly buzzword compliant before the phrase was invented, the lack of any mention of this quality (except obliquely in Gates' & MacNeilly's quoted snark), is a fatal flaw to this article. I hope this was just an oversight, & that you meant to include this aspect of NeXT to the article. -- llywrch 05:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll add a section on the corporate culture of NeXT which will include many of those details. Especially the office space and nomenclature. For the record, NeXT adopted NuBus after Apple did. It was developed at MIT and TI. Tomhormby 19:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Material has been added. Next will be Impact which will include Mac OS X and WebObjects after the merger. Tomhormby 04:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My mistake about NuBus: I was too hasty in reading the Wikipedia article. (In my defense, I'll merely say that I had a browser crash while I was writing the above & wasn't as inclined to be as careful as I try to be.) However, I'll take this opportunity to suggest that you should balance the material about its influence on the Mac with its influence on Open/Free Source projects like AfterStep, Window Maker and GnuStep (if for no other reason, evidence of the "Cult of NeXTStep"). I'll review the article once you're satisfied with your changes. -- llywrch 19:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]