Talk:IBM ThinkPad 701

Not quite ready for GAC

Hello!

This is an interesting article on a worthy subject! I have a few suggestions before undertaking a GAC. First, there is a lot of clunky language in here. My suggestion is to read the piece aloud, beginning to end, as that's an excellent way to catch grammatical errors and inelegant phrasings.

The table of specifications is a bit hard to read and unattractive. Is this a standard format or something you developed individually?

The placement of the video is currently awkward. It might serve better close to the keyboard section it is meant to illustrate. Also, a description of the video would be helpful.

I'd like to see more on the genesis of the 701. Was it build around the keyboard concept, or was there always going to be a 486-based IBM laptop in this era, and the butterfly came later?

You mention the 760, but is it actually a version of the 701 or just the next model that came out?

In the infobox, is there a series parameter where you can indicate which model series came before and after the 701?

That's what I have for now. Let's shoot for B class and then go for GAC. :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Neopeius: Thanks for your comments.

I will try to fix the clunky language in the next days in this article.

Regarding the specifications table, I loosely based it on the IBM Reference Guide that is used as a reference and changed the order of the items. The last three rows could be changed into prose as there is only one column with info. For the other rows, I don't think there is a clearer way of expressing this information in a different way. If you have suggestions let me know, but I don't know how to make it any better than this.

I agree about the video, I already moved it.

About the genesis, I will look for more sources. From what I currently understand, there were quite a few 486 laptops already, they mainly wanted to solve the issue of not being able to fit a full sized keyboard into a laptop with a smaller footprint, like the IBM ThinkPad 500, which sold badly due to its small keyboard. So John Karidis invented the keyboard concept. I'll look into adding this with reliable sources.

About the 760, it was basically the next notebook that came out, its not a version of the 701. But I thought it was useful to mention in the further development paragraph.

The previous and next model is a bit difficult. You could argue that from a model name perspective, the IBM ThinkPad 700 came before. But because it is a subnotebook, the IBM ThinkPad 510 would have been the predecessor. IBM did not wanted to attach the bad reputation of the 500/510 to the 701, so they used the "wrong" series. So I'm not sure what to add to the infobox, maybe only describe this nuance in prose only. Let me know what you think.

Can you *not* fail the nomination, so I can fix this up to the B-level and continue the GA review this way? Because it can take a long time before it will be reviewed otherwise. Thanks. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@PhotographyEdits: I'll be happy to keep this nomination going. :) I look forward to reviewing the updated article! --Neopeius (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Neopeius: Thank you! I was thinking about the table, what do you think about having the spec information both in prose and in a table? Like IBM_ThinkPad_700#Features_and_models. A lot of ThinkPad articles have at least the table, so for consistency I would prefer keeping it. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@PhotographyEdits: I wasn't suggesting to eliminate the table. I just wanted to make sure it was a standardized thing. :)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:IBM ThinkPad 701/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 21:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose quality falls short of well written. Entire article needs to be copyedited by the primary author or by a third party. Samples of difficult to understand language: "The concept of the keyboard was first developed as a photocopy of a keyboard in spring 1993" (what does that mean?), "The overall design language was by Richard Sapper." (no explanation of what overall design language is or how it affects the laptop), "The IBM legal department did not allow the name of living creatures for products. It was part of the subnotebook series like the ThinkPad 500, but they did not want to attach the same name to this model due to bad sales of the previous 500 model." (The IBM legal department didn't want the model to be associated with the Thinkpad 500?), and the "Marketing" subsection in the Background section essentially contradicts the "Naming" subsection. Just a smattering of poor grammar: "The sale was from March 1995 until later that year.", "The 701 was the most sold laptop in 1995 and has received 27 design awards, is shown in museums and has been featured in movies", "The 701C was outgrown of a collaboration between the manufacturing facility in Raleigh and development at the Yamato Facility." The "Further developments" section is a random collection of facts assembled into a paragraph.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	1. MOS:LEAD: The lead is on the brief size, but adequately summarizes the article's current contents. The prose is a bit poor. I am not sure that having a passing appearance in the movies listed in the article rise to the level of "has been featured in movies" and the article does not elaborate on how the laptop played such a major part in the films to have that mention. 2. MOS:LAYOUT:No concerns. 3. MOS:WTW: Some unsupported attributions ("has been described") and puffery in the "Discontinuation" section ("innovative features"). 4. WP:WAF: Does not apply. 5. Embedded Lists: No issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are provided using appropriate citation formats.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	In-line citations are from reliable sources. No major issues with missing citations on facts that are likely to be a source of contention.
	2c. it contains no original research.	OR not an issue that I have observed.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Manual and automated searches have not turned up any issues with copyright violations or plagiarism, although I do not have access to the Sams book, which is cited heavily in this article. AGF that there is no plagiarism from that source.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Some clarification needed tags in the article; one from May 2021, and three that I just added. Other questions are left unanswered. Why was the product discontinued at the end of 1995 if it was the most sold laptop in 1995? The confusion about the butterfly naming and the legal department that I mentioned above is a source of confusion. A better description of the product aside from its keyboard, which was obviously a notable feature of the laptop, is needed. How was it positioned against its competitors? Why were the DX4 models so much cheaper than the DX2 models?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	"In popular culture" section offers a couple of mentions of times the product was spotted in various movies, with the description that the product was "featured" in these movies, but does not explain the cultural significance of the product in those movies. Refer to the WP:IPC essay for more guidance on this.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	NPOV not an issue.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable and is not the subject of an edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Three images in the article, all appropriately and believably tagged with copyright tags. No fair use content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The relevance of the photo of a 701 next to an ASUS Eee escapes me. I don't know exactly what this photo is trying to show and the caption doesn't help.
	7. Overall assessment.	Needs further refining in order to meet the GA requirements. Feel free to add comments or responses below this table, or add to the lines within the table, possibly using italics or bold to distinguish it from my text. I will leave this open for a while if you would like to make the suggested changes immediately, otherwise take your time to make the changes and renominate it at a later time. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello @RecycledPixels: thanks for your review! I'd like to improve the article this week, please keep the review open.

I have some comments about your review.

What I mean by "overall design language" is the style that is common for all ThinkPads designed since 1992, not specifically for the 701 model.

Then it should be rephrased to make it easier to know what the article is trying to tell us about him. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

"The IBM legal department didn't want the model to be associated with the Thinkpad 500". Yes, exactly.

The language is very unclear and that does not sound like a decision that would be made by the legal department, more the product managers or the marketing department. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the movies, it was cited in multiple WP:RS so I think that it should be mentioned in the article, but I agree that it might not warrant a whole paragraph about it. It was not a significant part in the movies where it was used in. Do you think it should be removed entirely? I think it's a nice fact that should be mentioned, but let me know if you disagree with that.

I think it is good you removed it. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph indeed, but not the information, which I merged together with the museum info where its on display. I think that's the most logical place to put it. I also think that the article should be broad in scope and reflect information that is written in the reliable sources. Multiple sources talk about its occurrence in movies, so I think that it is warranted to write a sentence about it. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

From all of the sources I have read I cannot answer the question of the price differences between the DX2 and DX4.

Hint: refer to the source where you obtained that information. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@RecycledPixels The source for the pricing is the IBM PDF which contains detailed technical specifications, but not any reasoning about the prices. Or are you referring to some different source? PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I added the EEE PC picture because to show how it compares in size to a more modern subnotebook, which people are likely more familiar with. I have added a new caption, but if that violates WP:OR let me know. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The Eee 901 was released in 2008, so it's not really a modern subnotebook. And since it wasn't produced even within a decade of the ThinkPad 701, it's not even a contemporary product, so I really am not seeing the point of the photograph. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@RecycledPixels Note that I said "more modern", not "modern". But okay, I have removed the image. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@RecycledPixels: The book does not specify where the legal threat came from, only that it was a supercomputer. Would it be appropriate to link to BBN Butterfly or would that be WP:OR? PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@RecycledPixels: I was also thinking about improving the further developments paragraph, which you criticized because it's a bunch of random facts assembled into a paragraph. But I think that's the essence of such a paragraph, to list everything that happened to this laptop model, after it went EOL. All statements uses reliable sources. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

It has been two weeks since any significant work has been done on this article, so I will fail this nomination for now. The issues I identified in criteria 3b and 6b above have been addressed, the issues in 1a, 1b, and 3a continue to prevent me from promoting this at this time. Feel free to take your time to make improvements and renominate it in the future. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Page move

I've opened a technical request to move this page to IBM ThinkPad 701C. 701C is the model name used by IBM and the general public, so I think it is more fitting. TheForgottenKing (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

External links

Not sure if they should be added back, but backing them up here for a while at least:

• Craig's IBM Butterfly Page
• The Butterfly (in Japanese)
• "IBM ThinkPad Butterfly, 360 degree model", Russian Vintage Laptop Museum (museum), 6 April 2017
• Commercial by IBM
• Japanese IBM ThinkPad 701C brochure
• Battery replacement guide
• Remembering the ThinkPad 701C
• IBM ThinkPad 701C, Complete Restoration!

PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)