Talk:Alan Kotok/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead could use some expansion. All three paragraphs are fairly short, and the lead doesn't feel like it gives a solid overview of the article.
 * Is it better now?
 * It is still really short. To be a true paragraph, one needs to have at least three sentences. Now that I have combined the last two paragraphs you have the first paragraph with two sentences, the second with three sentences and the third with two sentences. Do you see what I'm getting at? These are all really short paragraphs. Make sure that you're summarizing the entire article - for example, at the moment, I don't see anything in the lead that summarizes the Personal life section.
 * Added a bit of Personal life. Yes, I understand what you're saying. Perhaps you are used to longer articles. Let me know if you need more.


 * In the Software section, why is "true hackers" in italics?
 * Fixed.


 * In the second paragraph of the Digital section, it says "Digital photographed Bell and Kotok at the PDP-6." Why is this a notable enough fact to include in the article?
 * Good question. We don't know for sure what is pictured, but it was likely the first around-the-world network. I can move it to external links?
 * I suppose it would work in the external links, if it's really that important. Someone having a photo taken of themselves, even if it is at an important moment, is not really worthy enough to be mentioned in the article. People take photos of important moments all the time. I don't think that the Barrack Obama article says "he became the first black president of the US, and so lots of people took his photo"...
 * Omitted.


 * In the last paragraph of the Web section, "BoF" is a disambig page and I have no idea what it means. Please spell it out and wikilink to the correct page.
 * Thank you. Fixed.


 * In the second paragraph of the W3C section, it says "He briefly led the Technology and Society Domain with activity". I'm a little confused at this wording. Is the TSD a listing of techies that ranks by activity? Or do you mean "led" as in he was a Chairman/President/etc?
 * Yes he was a chairman. Reworded.
 * It's still confusing. Why not just say straight out that he was chairman?
 * Says now straight out that he was Domain Leader.


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Please make sure that all web references have publishers and access dates.
 * Fixed.
 * Refs 5 and 6 are still missing publishers.
 * Fixed.


 * Please combine identical references. For example, I believe refs 1 and 6 are the same ref, even though they are formatted differently.
 * Combined.


 * Ref 36 (Anne Stuart) deadlinks.
 * Aha. Fixed.


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I found a few issues with prose/MOS and referencing, so I am placing this review on hold. Overall, though, this is a very nice little article, and very close to GA status. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Dana boomer (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've interspersed my replies above. Items that I believe to be completed I have struck. Dana boomer (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, the article looks good, so I'm passing it to GA status. Thanks for all the work you've done and your prompt response. Dana boomer (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dana boomer. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I found a few issues with prose/MOS and referencing, so I am placing this review on hold. Overall, though, this is a very nice little article, and very close to GA status. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Dana boomer (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've interspersed my replies above. Items that I believe to be completed I have struck. Dana boomer (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, the article looks good, so I'm passing it to GA status. Thanks for all the work you've done and your prompt response. Dana boomer (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dana boomer. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)