Talk:Mead–Conway VLSI chip design revolution

Untitled comment

I cannot understand, why this article should need a clean-up. It is well written and describes the breakthrough of an important Disruptive Innovation by convincing masses of educators word-wide.Rainier3 08:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple points, It has issues with non-idiomatic English, which makes much of it's meaning opaque to readers unfamiliar with the subject. (I'm personally familiar with the subject, and still own a copy of the relevant textbook.) In addition, there are some punctuation issues and so forth, and lacks footnotes. Still, I'll try and clean some of this up, and leave more specific and useful tags for any issues that I feel remain. --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The following sententences are not correct English, I believe. They're confusing to me at least: "Immediately after invention and commercialization of the integrated circuit, when only a hundred or less transistors have been on a chip, the design has been co-located with integrated circuit technology.", "[...] so that because of the high circuit complexity more and more the device physics experts have not really been well qualified.". It sounds like it's written by a German, judging by the overuse of "has been" and "have been". But it should be fairly easy to clean up by someone who's knowledgeable in the field (which I'm not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runesvend (talk • contribs) 10:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's nowhere close to idiomatic English. Beyond the verb structure "colocated with" is a dead giveaway. — MaxEnt 01:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The language is still a mess. The opening sentence is incomprehisible to a general audience and written with extremely poor grammar, even for knowledgeable readers. For example what does a 'revolution' and 'academic materials' actually mean? I think these words should be replaced with something a bit more concrete. Ashmoo (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Poultry bissines

Spam comment redacted. — MaxEnt 01:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

how do e know this isnt bogus self promotion. A revolution??

Contributions (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

[1], [2], etc. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a merge proposal

While this is not a merge proposal, it would be good to delineate what this page covers over and above the VLSI Project and vice versa. — MaxEnt 01:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)