Template:Did you know nominations/Systime Computers Ltd

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• ... that Systime Computers Ltd, once Britain's second largest computer manufacturer, was a victim of the Cold War? Source: "By 1985, in the aftermath of U.S. sanctions, the company was virtually destroyed." – footnote 12 in article

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Leighton Battery

Created by Wasted Time R (talk). Self-nominated at 11:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC).

• Review

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems: - I believe some of the sections in your article, specifically The Cold War, could be rewritten to have more full-length prose to it, and not merely a collection of sentences. There isn't anything wrong with the content, it could just be formatted to be nicer to read. There is also some unprofessional language, e.g. "The effect was immense". Be specific in what affected what, and don't use the same phrase twice in succession.

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - No citation was given.
• Interesting: - It is very unclear what "was a victim of the Cold War" means. If you wish to say that the Cold War caused several economic failures that lead to the company's bankruptcy, a better way to phrase it may be "was brought to bankruptcy because of Cold War restrictions on exports". I also recommend adding in an interesting fact from your summary: "During the late 1970s and early 1980s, Systime become the second largest British manufacturer of computers". I would phrase it as such: "...that Systime Computers, the second largest British computer manufacturer, was brought to bankruptcy because of Cold War restrictions?"

Overall: Waxworker (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Waxworker: Thanks for the review. I completely agree that the Cold War section needs more work on the prose – the sources I was using were unclear on some of the timeline, and so I am looking at some additional sources from the Gale repository in the WP Library, and was waiting on the prose until that was done. But I was up against the 7-day filing deadline for DYK so I had to create the nom today. Bear with me, I will have the article in better shape in the next couple of days. As for the hook, I like a little bit of mystery in the hook, to draw the reader into clicking through. But I realize that hook styles differ ... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Waxworker: I've done further work on this and the copyediting run that I spoke out, so the article is ready for re-review. In terms of the ALT0 original hook, I think it is supported by this quote in the article: "By 1985, in the aftermath of U.S. sanctions, the company was virtually destroyed.". But per your request, here are two alternate hooks.

• ALT1: ... that Systime Computers Ltd, based in Leeds, was once Britain's second largest computer manufacturer? Source: It was the second largest computer manufacturer based in Britain, behind only the mainframe-oriented International Computers Limited (ICL). – footnote 1 in article

• ALT2: ... that Systime Computers Ltd, once Britain's second largest computer manufacturer, went into great decline due to a dispute over export restrictions during the Cold War? Source: It was the second largest computer manufacturer based in Britain, ...The exports control issue was not the only factor that led to the collapse of Systime. ... But the role of the exports issue was critical. – footnotes 1, 12, and 43 in article

Note that we can't say "bankruptcy", as you suggested, because as far as I know the company never actually entered that state. I continue to prefer ALT0, but it's up to you and the DYK promoter.

Thanks for your patience and let me know of any further comments. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Re-review

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - While you have provided a quote from the article that supports your hook, and upon searching for the quote in the article it appears well-cited, you're supposed to put the citation for your hook in your submission.
• Interesting:

Overall: Apologies for the delayed reply. The article looks much better and ALT1 and ALT2 both look like good hooks. This is a good DYK, but requires a citation, which seems like a quick fix. Waxworker (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Waxworker: It was my understanding that giving sources in the hook proposals was encouraged but not required, but in any case I have now done so for all three hooks. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: The sources are good. Thank you for adding the sources and for your patience. I approve the DYK. Waxworker (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with the nominator that ALT0 is the most "hooky". We're trying to entice readers to click on the article, not fill the preps with statements of fact. Yoninah (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)