Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Computer/archive2

Computer

This is the second nomination for Computer, but you may safely ignore the first since the article has been rewritten in its entirety since then. This is obviously an article on a very broad and (I think) somewhat important topic, and one that many people here will know at least something about. So there are a lot of differing opinions on how an article of such broad scope should be written. After asking for the input of other editors, we decided to attempt to use a hub article approach ("we" being myself and SteveBaker, the primary authors) wherein the main article lightly touches on many of the highest important topics but leaves details to subsidary articles. In this choice we made some decisions that will probably bring up questions/objections in this FAC discussion, so I'd like to address them up front:

• The bulk of the article's text focuses on the stored program architecture and the details of the computer/program relationship. I'm sure that many people would see this and be quite ready to give their opinion on what the core topics should have been. The reason we concentrate on these two issues is that they are the most basic way one can define a "computer" as the term is used in modern language. All modern (since the mid-1940s) computers store and execute programs, and that is the fundamental attribute that differentiates them from calculators. Keeping in mind that this article is about the "Computer", we feel it is appropriate for most of the substantial text to focus on what really defines a computer. All other topics should be treated in other articles.
• There is a big section full of links. I realize this is probably going to be one of the most contentious aspects of this article. Many of us have a bitter taste for lists, and for good reason. However, we have carefully selected the links in these tables to provide quick access to many important computer-related topics. The reason we have done this simple: if the casual reader (unaquainted with Wikipedia in all its technicalities and details) comes here looking for information on computer-related topics, the first article he will visit is this one. We feel that these organized link tables provide a compact way of easily finding further reading on a variety of topics. One might argue that we should just link to a category, but frankly that's all but worthless for a topic that covers a non-negligible percentage of the articles on Wikipedia. Please think carefully before voting based merely on these links. Consider that there are few (if any) featured articles on a broad topic, and there are therefore few examples of broadly scoped article style and organization to adapt. We have tried to keep the link tables to a reasonable size while still providing a "user friendly" segue into the numerous other computer related topics. Once again, the lists in this article are not a cheap substitute for actual content, but rather they are meant to be an easy starting point for further reading on this broad topic.
• This article has relatively few references. Another potentially hot point. The article is an overview of a LOT of information. While there are a myriad of "how your computer works" books and websites out there, I have yet to encounter one that was really well done (technically correct yet accessible to the lay man) and didn't resort to terrible analogies. The very concept of the stored program computer cannot be easily sourced to one location (otherwise I would've just ref'ed von Neumann's First Draft Report on the EDVAC and been done with it). The point is, while this article could easily garner a thousand references, I would rather take the time to use GOOD references than google some random crappy website that probably contains plenty of misconceptions, omissions, or factual errors. If you take issue with the state of references in this article, I implore you to give us specific claims that you would like to be referenced. I will do my best to add solid refs for anything that needs to be verified. Comments to the effect "needs more refs" are worthless and encourage exactly the opposite of what WP:V is supposed to accomplish (that is, encourages finding a myriad of aforementioned poor references rather than a few good ones).

I'm a little concerned that too many people will vote based on how they would have written the article (but did not) rather than on the merits and drawbacks of the article how it currently stands. I ask you to please give this article a thorough read-through before passing judgement. If you do feel the need to tear it apart, please make your criticisms as constructive as possible. Part of the reason for this nomination is to get some additional critical readership since we got very little useful response in peer review. Thanks for your attention, and I look forward to any constructive comments you can make. -- mattb @ 2006-12-13T00:32Z

• Object
  • I sincerely doubt that good references can't be found. There are plenty of computer architecture textbooks out there that you could source. Since you asked for specifics, citations are needed for these among many others:
    • Originally, the term "computer" referred to a person who performed numerical calculations (a human computer), often with the aid of a mechanical calculating device.
    • The end of the Middle Ages saw a re-invigoration of European mathematics and engineering, and Wilhelm Schickard's 1623 device was the first of a number of mechanical calculators constructed by European engineers.
    • In 1801, Joseph Marie Jacquard made an improvement to the textile loom that used a series of punched paper cards as a template to allow his loom to weave intricate patterns automatically.
    • Large-scale automated data processing of punched cards was performed for the US Census in 1890 by tabulating machines designed by Herman Hollerith and manufactured by the Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation (CTR), which later became IBM.
    • The table for Defining characteristics of five first operative digital computers and the claims presented in the list of those five in the prose below.
    • Nearly all modern computers implement some form of the stored program architecture, making it the single trait by which the word "computer" is now defined.
    • A typical modern computer can execute billions of instructions every second and nearly never make a mistake over years of operation.
    • For instance, the Pentium FDIV bug caused some Intel microprocessors in the early 1990s to produce inaccurate results for certain floating point division operations. This was caused by a flaw in the microprocessor design and resulted in a partial recall of the affected devices.
    • This is called the Harvard architecture after the Harvard Mark I computer. Modern von Neumann computers display some traits of the Harvard architecture in their designs, such as in CPU caches.
    • The entire Networking and the Internet section. Doing so can also replace vague generalities like "A very large proportion of personal computers" with specific statistics.
  • Prose problems:
    • So by the end of the 19th century a number of technologies that would later prove useful in the realization of practical computers had begun to appear: Why start this sentence with the unencyclopedic "so"?
    • ...around this time; the first of these being completed in Great Britain. Incorrect use of the semicolon.
    • While a person will normally read each word and line in sequence, they
    • It is noticeable that the sequence of operations...
    • In the phrase of John Gage and Bill Joy (of Sun Microsystems), "the network is the computer". In the phrase of?
  • Some of your ref links (like Shannon 1940) don't go anywhere. Gzkn 02:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I will try to find references for the given examples. This recent WP:V dogma is utterly insane, but if a reference after every third sentence is what you'll require for the rubber stamp, then that's what I'll attempt to provide. It sure is fortunate History of computing hardware was grandfathered into FA before we had to prove that the sky is blue. (or maybe we should nominate it for de-listing along with most of our other FAs) Sorry, I'm just a little frustrated with these nutty circumstances. I see it as a waste of time to be required to properly reference statements that anyone can confirm with a ten-second google search. -- mattb @ 2006-12-13T03:25Z
      • "if a reference after every third sentence is what you'll require for the rubber stamp, then that's what I'll attempt to provide" Please don't put words in my mouth. If, as you say, all of these facts can be confirmed by a ten-second Google search (which I doubt), then it should be quite easy to reference them to a verifiable source for the benefit of readers, no? Gzkn 05:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes they are easy to verify, but googled links hardly make for good sources. Try it sometime. -- mattb @ 2006-12-13T20:19Z
    • Regarding the prose errors; I've fixed all that you listed except for the singular they, which is (arguably) not an error at all. Any other one-word corrections you'd like to dictate? Is it really that big a deal for you to just fix these sorts of tiny errors on your own? It takes just as much time to copy and paste them here. Oh well, better you point them out than they go unfixed... Thanks for your input. -- mattb @ 2006-12-13T03:41Z
      • Um...no. I had one tab opened to this page and another to Computer. It was much easier to copy paste stuff while I'm reading rather than editing Computer and sifting through to find what I wanted to point out. Also, this way, it gives you a chance to judge my points, such as the singular they, and decide for yourself if they needed to be changed. I also might suggest a change in your attitude would do you well here. If you view this whole process and my comments above as a charade and a waste of time, I'm not really inclined to help improve the article. Gzkn 05:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
        • My comments weren't meant to be condescending, I was merely pointing out that it sure would be nice if you just fixed these kinds of obvious mistakes as you saw them. Anyway, my attitude has gotten me through over three years on Wikipedia, so I see little reason to adjust it. I'm just a little disgruntled about this recent spat of WP:V dogma on FAC, that's all. I do appreciate any suggestions for improvement that you make, so please don't think that I don't value input. -- mattb @ 2006-12-13T20:19Z

• Object—1a (prose) and 2a (lead). The standard of writing fails the requirements throughout.
• The opening sentence is not promising: the ability to store stored programs? Then there's a sense of "stored programmability", which is not what I think you mean.
• The opening paragraph goes into rather theoretical territory, whereas I was expecting a big-picture statement of the rise of computers in our civilisation.
• "computers can be made small enough to fit into a wrist watch and powered from a watch battery"—grammar doesn't work.
• Clumsy repetition: "used to control other devices—for example, they are used to control".

Then, further down:

• • "The question of which was the earliest computer is a difficult one."—What, a difficult computer?
  • "The very definition of what a computer is has changed over the years"—Try "The very definition of a computer has changed over the years". Over the years is vague.
  • "While the resulting Jacquard loom is not considered to be a computer, it was an important step because the use of punched cards to define woven patterns can be viewed as an early, albeit limited, form of programmability." Flabby prose; try "The resulting Jacquard loom was an important step in the development of computers because the use of punched cards to define woven patterns can be viewed as an early, albeit limited, form of programmability."
  • "Due to limits of finances"—no, "Due to limited finance".

It's not worth reading further until the prose has been significantly reworked. Tony 14:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Most of these prose problems arise from it having been written and revised by just two people. Can you suggest somewhere we could find an editor or two to rework things that may seem awkward to the casual reader? I've looked long and hard for such a thing, but it doesn't seem to exist on Wikipedia anymore (peer review has been dead in the water for awhile now). Thanks. -- mattb @ 2006-12-13T20:19Z

Yes, here, but the page is rather raw. Might help. Tony 07:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Tony, Gzkn, and if the article nomination requires a long explanation, it may be because the article needs tightening up wrt WP:WIAFA. Sandy (Talk) 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The long explanation was an attempt to answer questions that may have come up regarding the article's organization. It's notoriously difficult to write a good broad-scope article, and historically nearly impossible to pass one through FAC. I wanted to address some things that could have been contentious right off the bat because I figured they'd come up anyway. I've written two featured articles (admittedly, before these crazy modern times), so I do actually know what constitutes one. -- mattb @ 2006-12-13T20:19Z
• Comment To the editors, I wouldn't worry just yet. Prose can be fixed with the right spirit of determination, and usually one or two simple statements can be excused if a good effort to find all the other citation neededs has been made. Seems like no one has objected about the actual content or makeup on the article, so carry on! --Zeality 16:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment re: the Further Topics section. Not clear why the particular hardware and software listed was chosen for inclusion. Much is left out. Why is this list notable? Who says so? What criteria? Hmains 05:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• • We started compiling a list of important topics months ago. If you see any glaring omissions, please do mention what they are and we'll discuss including them. -- mattb @ 2006-12-19T23:54Z