Talk:Epson MX-80

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Epson MX-80 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 1, 2025. (Reviewed version).

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Epson MX-80/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DigitalIceAge (talk · contribs) 06:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Joereddington (talk · contribs) 17:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This reads really really well. There are some things to pick on, but not much.

First thoughts:

"Epson MX-100, a wide-format version of the MX-100" has completely confused me. Typo?
- Y Yes, that was a typo. Fixed. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
" In addition, the MX-80's firmware ROM takes count of the length of each line printed as well as the position of the printhead on the paper in order to calculate exactly how much and in what direction the printhead needs to move to reach the start (or end) of the next line. This logical bidirectional printing increases throughput further.[16] " I don't have the source but that reads super strange to me with my computing hat on. Why not just reset to 'left margin'? Why would you start at the end?
- It's hard to explain in a nutshell, but if a line of text is equal in length to the last, you would technically want to start at the end of that line instead of resetting to the left margin in order to shave time off printing. This video demonstrates this in practice. I'll try to polish up that paragraph in the future to make it more comprehensible. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be cool if we had a Graftrax picture.
- They're unfortunately unobtainium, at least on eBay... DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Missing alt-text - it's not a GA requirement so... but it's important to me so I'd like you to think about it...
- Y Added. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Okay, let's review.

Criterion	Status	Notes
1a. Well-written	Pass	The article is clearly written, jargon is either avoided or explained (possibly to a fault), and the structure is easy to follow.
1b. Comprehensive	Pass	Coverage is broad and appropriate for the topic: development history, specifications, Graftrax, variants, sales/reception, and legacy are all addressed with good depth. I don’t see any major missing aspects that a reasonable reader would expect. The Graftrax and IBM 5152 material is particularly nice. I'd be interested to know if there is a hacking community around it of some sort.
2a. Verifiable, with no original research	Pass	All significant claims appear to be backed by reliable sources (books, trade magazines, historical overviews). Short-footnote style is used consistently. One small thing to watch is explicit citation placement for “first disposable, user-serviceable printhead” – the supporting citation could be placed at the end of that sentence rather than only on the following one – but the source does exist and is already in use.
2b. No original research	Pass	The article summarises published sources and does not appear to synthesise them in a way that adds new analytical claims. Historical and technical details all trace back to named sources. I would have been able to do a more in-depth review if I had access to the sources but hey.
3. Broad in its coverage	Pass	The article covers the major aspects: company background; context in printer history; technical design and capabilities; upgrades; variants; commercial performance; and longer-term legacy. There are no obvious undue gaps or overemphasis.
4. Neutral point of view	Pass	The tone is generally neutral and attributions are clear (e.g. Veit calling it a “landmark”). A few enthusiastic adjectives (e.g. "massive commercial success", "meteoric growth") could be slightly toned down or more explicitly tied to sources, but overall the article reads as balanced, not promotional.
5. Stable	Pass	No evidence of edit warring or ongoing content disputes. Seems like one editor from the beginning and a year of marinating.
6a. Illustrated, if possible, by images	Pass	The article is well illustrated. If you had access to an MX-80 I'd be amused by a sample of the printing itself.
6b. Images are relevant, copyright-compliant, and have appropriate captions	Pass	Images are relevant and captions are generally clear. One caption in the gallery (“Epson MX-100, a wide-format version of the MX-100”) has a small wording slip (it should read “wide-format version of the MX-80”), but this is a trivial, easily fixed issue.

Result: On balance, the article meets the Good Article criteria. I'd like you to have a swing at the comments at the top (captions, alt-text, the wording around the print-head moving to the start of line, but as it stands it passes the criteria.

@Joereddington: Well that was quick! Thanks so much for the review! I think I've addressed your comments above and I've given a stab at alt text. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Epson MX-80

... that the Epson MX-80 (pictured) became the predominant de facto standard for dot matrix printers?

Source: PC Magazine: "100 percent compatible with the dominant de facto standard, the MX-80", New York Times: "the unit I have been using seems every bit as reliable as the Epson-80 series, also sold under the I.B.M. label for Big Blue's PC's, which have become a de facto reliability standard for the dot matrix printer industry", The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography: "At that time, Epson introduced the MX-80. This successful and widely distributed printer became for many the de facto industry standard for serial impact dot matrix printers"

ALT1: ... that the Epson MX-80 (pictured) was the best-selling dot matrix printer during its market lifespan? Source: PC World: "Reasonably cheap, relatively durable, and fast enough (about 1 page per minute), the MX-80 became the best-selling dot-matrix printer after it was released"
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Evgeny Ketov
Comment: Also reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/John Marzetti

Improved to Good Article status by DigitalIceAge (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 85 past nominations.

DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

article recently promoted to GA. Hooks are interesting and sourced. Earwig only finds a cited direct quote. Looks good to go. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]