Wikipedia

Talk:Margaret Hamilton (software engineer)/GA1

< Talk:Margaret Hamilton (software engineer)
Latest comment: 4 years ago by BlueMoonset in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago48 comments4 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Balon Greyjoy (talk · contribs) 10:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's me as your reviewer again! Glad to see that you have done so much work on the articles for the pioneers of spaceflight, with a particular focus on important women. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Glad to see you too! Right now my attention is focused on Valentina Tereshkova. Sorry if I go slower on this article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good. Just a heads up, I'll be on the go from July 4-7, so I won't be editing Wikipedia during that span. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

Comments

edit

Prose

edit
Lead
edit
Early life
edit
  • Is there any information about her family (siblings) or life events (moving)?
    • I found RS for her younger sister. Also used newspaper clippings to confirm family moves. Some OR in the 1940 census indicates she may have had a brother named David but I can't absolutely be sure. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Is this where she went to high school: Hancock Central High School (Michigan)? I'm assuming so, because she ended up in Michigan for college, and there are no Hancock High Schools in Indiana. I would link the appropriate high school, whichever one it is, and also include information that her family moved
  • I'm assuming she didn't drop out of University of Michigan; can you put why she moved to Earlham?
  • I know her personal info is later in the article, but I would state that she got married in the Early life section, as the second paragraph states that she has a husband, while there was no previous mention of him
  • I'm assuming she moved to Boston to teach math and French when her husband was at Harvard University? Also, did he get his undergraduate degree from Harvard?
    • No, they moved to Boston so he can go to Brandeis for his Master's. He earned his B.S. from Earlham in 1959. She taught high school in Boston, Indiana (this is where the confusion came from).
  • Did she not end up studying at Brandeis? Why not?
    • No she didn't. My interpretation of the sources is that this was likely because the birth of her daughter and she continued her work at MIT, which initially was intended to be a temporary summer position. She began working at MIT in summer 1959 and her daughter was born in November 1959. I guess she initially planned to go to Brandeis like her husband but that never happened. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Early career
edit
  • I would change this section to "Career" and include business ownership as a sub-section. It doesn't logically flow that there is an "Early career" section followed by a "Businesses" section
  • Split up the first sentence, it's a bit of a run on.
  • "At the time Hamilton wrote that computer science..." I'm assuming this is a reference to something Hamilton said that computer science wasn't a discipline? The reference given is not a citation of Hamilton's writing. I would either remove this section, or remove "At the time Hamilton wrote" and then cite Hamilton's writing.
  • What was the project that she moved to in summer 1961? If you don't have specifics on it, I would leave it out, as she wasn't on it for a significant time, if she began working on SAGE in 1961 as well
  • I would rewrite "to search for unfriendly aircraft," as the computer itself wasn't doing it, it was interfacing with the SAGE-related radar systems to search for aircraft (and it was up to the operators to determine what was and wasn't unfriendly)
  • Combine the paragraph that about Project Whirlwind with the previous paragraph; they are both pretty short
  • Remove or combine "SAGE was soon developed for military use in anti-aircraft air defense from potential Soviet attacks during the Cold War." with the previous paragraph's description, as SAGE has already been introduced to be about searching for aircraft
  • I would remove the Hamilton quote from the SAGE project section, as it doesn't say anything particularly profound/needs to be a quote, just that programming was really difficult at the time
  • I would remove "It was her efforts on this project that made her a candidate for the position at NASA as the lead developer for Apollo flight software." as that isn't very specific; it just states that her programming experience allowed her to move to another programming job. Also, it's not like the SAGE software was related to flight control, so there's not a direct link between the work she did in computer-radar interface and spacecraft flight control
  • Change "NASA" sub-section to "Draper Laboratory," as she did not work for NASA
  • Put in a date for when Hamilton when to Draper Labs
  • I would combine "which included algorithms designed by various senior scientists for the Apollo command module, lunar lander and the subsequent Skylab. Another part of her team designed and developed the systems software" as both sentences state that the team designed software for the spacecraft
  • Do you have any more specifics on what systems and sub-systems her team designed software for?
  • "She worked to gain hands-on experience during a time when computer science courses were uncommon and software engineering courses did not exist." This is confusing. I understand that it a commentary on the time before computer science was formally taught, but I don't think it's necessary. It's not like she was in college at the time, nor was her lack of formal computer training notable in that era, as computers were so new.
  • I would either shorten or remove the "Area of expertise" paragraph, as there are quite a lot of topics listed, when expertise implies a specialization in a given topic. Additionally, some of these areas are very vague, such as "operating systems," "quality assurance," and "software development"
  • I would combine the Apollo 11 sub-section with the previous sub-section, as they are not distinct periods of her career
  • This sub-section is pretty dense, and difficult to comprehend, and I consider myself fairly familiar with the Apollo 11 near-abort. I would shorten and summarize almost all of it, as it is not very approachable to someone unfamiliar trying to read it. I would remove the quotes from Laning and Hamilton, and summarize how her software helped. As I understand it, the computer became overloaded as a result of an anomalous power supply, it entered restarts, and luckily Hamilton's team had properly prioritized the 1202 alarm to be displayed, thus causing Jack Garman to realize there was not a serious issue, and to issue the go call. I think all of this can be said in far fewer words than is currently in the sub-section, and the quotes would better serve as reference text to be paraphrased.
Businesses
edit
  • I would state that Hamilton and Saydean Zeldin founded HOS in 1976, and then describe what HOS does. Bring up that she left in 1984/1985 (both dates are listed in the paragraph)
  • "HOS methodology" is this something Hamilton and Zeldin created at MIT?
  • Combine the "successfully used" paragraph with the following one
  • Remove "notable," as the source doesn't describe the project as particularly notable
  • I would shorten the following paragraph to a sentence or two, and combine it with the previous paragraph. It's just repeated criticism of the company, but it's not for something particularly notable that Hamilton was involved in (such as a crime or major event)
  • "she became the founder and CEO of Hamilton..." could be "she founded Hamilton..."
  • what was her "paradigm of Development Before The Fact for systems design and software development." This hasn't been explained before, but is treated like it was something she worked on previously
Legacy
edit
  • I removed "It is a matter of debate" and stated that those three individuals have been crediting with naming the discipline software engineering. By adding the multiple names, it's clear that multiple people have been credited. Also, she has been credited regardless of whether she was the one who coined the term
  • I removed "Margaret H."
  • Is the first quote actually a quote from Hamilton? If so, why does she refer to herself in the third person? I would remove the first quote, as it is paraphrased in the final paragraph of the section.
Awards
edit
  • I removed the description of the Ada Lovelace Award, as it is a fairly generic description for an award celebrating a female computer scientist, which is already explained when it states that it's given by the Association for Women in Computing
  • I think the $37,200 prize should be removed. It is not a particularly notable sum (not that I would complain if someone gave me that kind of money out of the blue!), and the significant part is that she received an award. Also, I wasn't aware that NASA was int he business of handing out cash prizes (especially since it's funded by the taxpayers). Was this some sort of grant that was given?
    • Hate to disagree but the fact that it was the "largest amount awarded [by NASA] to any individual in NASA's history" seems notable to me. It is hard to note that fact without reporting the cash amount.
  • I made a minor edit to the LEGO sentence
Personal life
edit

References

edit
  • Why is the Sean O'Keefe quote treated as a reference? Were you trying to use it as a note? My inclination is to just cite the page that has the quote, as the quote itself isn't used in the text (nor should it be, in my opinion)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Initial review complete. I'll check back periodically, but please ping me if you have any questions/want me to comment. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I did not realize this had been nominated for GA; I was making some gnomey edits to it and was about to advise Coffeeandcrumbs on what needed done to make it GA. Not planning to read all of Balon's comments, so sorry if anything is duplicated, but in general the quotes definitely need cut down (maybe leave one...I doubt any of them are necessary though). Maybe write the awards list in prose. If the one footnote is necessary, separate it out as a footnote (if not necessary just remove it). I will probably be modifying the sources a teeny bit here and there improving them as well. Kees08 (Talk) 17:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Any idea of when you plan on further work on this article? No hurry, I just want to get an idea of when to expect more edits on it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Balon Greyjoy, I plan on finishing this between July 21 and July 24. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Coffeeandcrumbs: Any further updates on when this will be finished? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I became very busy doing the daily updates for WP:OTD while the coordinator of that section of the Main Page took a much deserved vacation. The user is scheduled to return to doing OTD on August 16 which should free up more of my time. But I will endeavor to do a little bit each day anyway. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
My apologies for my extended absense; I'll get to checking over the article this weekend! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Balon Greyjoy and Coffeeandcrumbs: Not rushing you, but what's the status on this? I could possibly make time to jump in and help if needed. Coffeeandcrumbs, did you see the sources someone posted on Women in Green? Kees08 (Talk) 07:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC) @Balon Greyjoy: Repinging (failed ping). Kees08 (Talk) 07:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Kees08, I would appreciate any help on her career section. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Status query

edit

Can this review be restarted somehow? As far as I can tell, Balon Greyjoy's last two edits were here, in August and September; aside from that, there haven't been regular Wikipedia edits for four months. The last edits to the article by Coffeeandcrumbs were in late September. Kees08, would you be able to take over the review, or is it more important that you work on edits for the article? In ten days, this review will have been open for five months, and if what we need is a new reviewer and Kees08 can't do it, I'll call for a second opinion in the hopes that a reviewer can be found that way. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

BlueMoonset, I think we should close this review as a fail. I will try again later. I am not happy with the state of the article myself. I apologize for nominating this article before it was ready. I am still looking for better sources. Full biographies of Hamilton are still not available and I would not feel comfortable promoting this article myself if I was the reviewer. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
That sounds like a good idea to me, Coffeeandcrumbs, given your assessment. I'll close it now, since Balon Greyjoy has been away from editing long enough that the review has effectively been abandoned. Thanks for replying so quickly. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Margaret_Hamilton_(software_engineer)/GA1&oldid=927257620"