Talk:Computer program/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Artem.G (talk · contribs) 09:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I will be reviewing this article. Artem.G (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments/questions:

• ref 1 - no isbn, and not entirely clear what does p. 1.1.2. mean
  • I changed the the definition to one with a better source. The opening sentence has been a point of contention. Timhowardriley (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• History - Code-breaking and cryptanalysis is the same, no need to duplicate
  • I removed the paragraph b/c it doesn't really add to computer program. Timhowardriley (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• in Early programmable computers these parts "A digital computer uses electricity as the calculating component.
  • I removed this sentence. Timhowardriley (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• The Z3 contained 2,400 relays to create the circuits. The circuits provided a binary, floating-point, nine-instruction computer. Programming the Z3 was through a specially designed keyboard and punched tape.",
  • This is sourced and adds to the progression of computer program. Timhowardriley (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The ENIAC featured parallel operations. Different sets of accumulators could simultaneously work on different algorithms. It used punched card machines for input and output, and it was controlled with a clock signal.
  • I removed these assertions. Timhowardriley (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• It ran for eight years, calculating hydrogen bomb parameters, predicting weather patterns, and producing firing tables to aim artillery guns."
  • It's now sourced. Timhowardriley (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• and "Programming transitioned away from moving cables and setting dials; instead, a computer program was stored in memory as numbers. Only three bits of memory were available to store each instruction, so it was limited to eight instructions. 32 switches were available for programming." are unsourced
  • I removed this. Timhowardriley (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• in Computer programming first three paragraphs are unsourced. Declarative languages: same. Compilation and interpretation: almost no refs. Storage and execution: same.
  • I'll work on these. Timhowardriley (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Self-modifying programs: unsourced.
  • I removed this. Timhowardriley (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Functional categories: partially unsourced.
  • This is the introduction to the subsequent sections. I'll investigate further. Timhowardriley (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• 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. 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. Artem.G (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Utility programs - it's just one unsourced sentence.
  • A utility program is a thing. However, I haven't found anyone writing about them. Timhowardriley (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Originally, operating systems were programmed in assembly; however, modern operating systems are typically written in C. - unsourced claim. F.e. IOS seems to be written in "C, C++, Objective-C, Swift, assembly language"; Android - "Java (UI), C (core), C++ and others"; Symbian was written in C++ (it's from the corresponding articles)
  • I added your edit. Timhowardriley (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Microcode programs - mostly unsourced
  • I disagree. It's sourced from Tanenbaum's book. 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. Artem.G (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll work on this. Timhowardriley (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• it's not clear for me how the last 3 images are connected to the text.
  • I removed the CPU image. I think the ALU image visualizes the inputs and outputs. The memory and disk controller images are only for color. Timhowardriley (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• 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. Artem.G (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • This review process has given me the courage to remove dubious material. 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. Artem.G (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@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 . Artem.G (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)