Content deleted Content added
→GA Review: ping |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 42:
* '''Application software''': completely unsourced.
** The editor of this section intended for the list to be self-evident. I'm okay with removing it, but someone did a lot of work. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 18:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
:* If it's a real thing, it should be sourced, or it's on the border of being OR, that's not suitable for the encyclopedia. I'll also try to find some sources if I'll have time. [[User:Artem.G|Artem.G]] ([[User talk:Artem.G|talk]]) 20:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
* '''Utility programs''' - it's just one unsourced sentence.
Line 51 ⟶ 52:
* '''Microcode programs''' - mostly unsourced
** I disagree. It's sourced from Tanenbaum's book. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 18:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
:* The first two sentences and one in the end of the section are sourced. Everything in between is unsourced. [[User:Artem.G|Artem.G]] ([[User talk:Artem.G|talk]]) 20:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
:** I'll work on this. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 20:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
* it's not clear for me how the last 3 images are connected to the text.
Line 57 ⟶ 60:
* Overall, I've just skimmed the article, and the biggest problem is sourcing, though I didn't check anything else. Once you've properly source everything, please ping me and I'll proceed with my review. Right now I'll put it '''onhold''' for a week. [[User:Artem.G|Artem.G]] ([[User talk:Artem.G|talk]]) 09:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
** This review process has given me the courage to remove dubious material. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 18:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
:* It's great! And, if you are willing to bring the article to GA, it would be great if you'll check everything written here with all the sources. The article isn't new and have a lot of stuff, so it wouldn't be fast and easy. [[User:Artem.G|Artem.G]] ([[User talk:Artem.G|talk]]) 20:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
{{ping|Timhowardriley}} I've checked the article, and though it became much better, it's still a long way from GA. The history section should be expanded, right now it consists of just a few sentences on Early programmable machines, Pascaline, and Jacquard's loom, and it's not clear how and why is it important. The part on Programming languages needs more references; Compilation and interpretation and Application software is partially unsourced. Boot program and Embedded programs consists of only a few sentences each. But Microcode programs is a big one and includes images of all the logical gates. So it's really hard to say that the article is broad and focused, not everything is given the equal attention. I don't want to discourage you, and this article is really tough, but I suggest you to go to [[WP:GOCE]] for copy-editing and, maybe, to [[Wikipedia:Peer review]] to get more specific comments. But either way, thanks for your work, now article is in a better shape than it was before!
But right now, it a failed GAN {{icon|FGAN}}. [[User:Artem.G|Artem.G]] ([[User talk:Artem.G|talk]]) 17:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
| |||