Yeah and it reads like a blog post and not encyclopedic. Stuff like this sentence: > Aside from its low hardware specification, perhaps the biggest perceived "

Yeah and it reads like a blog post and not encyclopedic. Stuff like this sentence: > Aside from its low hardware specification, perhaps the biggest perceived "design flaw" of the IBM PC was the what is nowadays called Upper Memory Area [...] IDK what the correct wikipedia response to that would be but probably citation required and NPOV. It could be made more neutral by rephrasing just to "The IBM PC architecture located I/O pages at the top of memory, limiting available RAM to 640 KiB. Alternatives such as the Victor located I/O pages at the start of memory allowing for 800-900 KiB of RAM". Let the reader come to the conclusion that they did this to try to improve the architecture, and don't assert that those architecture choices were qualitatively better, don't assert any opinions. It just sounds like the author is pleading a bit for the reader to see that other alternatives made qualitatively better choices.