Talk:Cray-3/GA1

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

Reviewer: Spinningspark (talk · contribs) 15:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking... SpinningSpark 15:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * I feel Cray (the person) should be mentioned earlier in the lead and his relationship to the company made clear.
 * Indeed, I have cleaned all of this up a bit.


 * Background
 * The third paragraph has an ambiguity between "he" and "they" in the first and second sentence.
 * Fixed.


 * Development
 * "original Chippewa Falls lab". It is not clear what this is, presumably it is the CRI lab where the Cray 3 development began.  This could be stated explicitly, perhaps introducing the name earlier in the article as well.  Also, if this is Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin it should be wikilinked on first mention.
 * Fixed and fixed.


 * "with the company retaining 10% of the new company's stock". Might be better to explicitly say which company, ie "with CRI retaining..."
 * Fixed.


 * Cray...worked under contract. This did, however, require the lab to move to a new building" This seems confusing; it reads as if Cray working under contract caused the move to a new building.  Is the move to a new building synonymous with the move from Chippenwa Falls?  If so, a change of building is obvious.  Why not just say the move caused further delays.  Also, why is it "further", no previous delays were mentioned.  One can read between the lines that the low priority delayed development, but if that is the case then it should be stated explicitly.
 * They did move twice - CRI still owned their original building in Colorado, when the company was spun off they had to leave. Should be clearer now.


 * "In service, the static RAM proved to be problematic, it was discovered that the square root code contained a bug..." How can a bug in the code be a problem with the RAM?
 * Fixed.


 * MPP is not defined or wikilinked.
 * Defined.


 * References
 * The external links tool shows several deadlinks and other problems.
 * Ok I'll work on these... fixed. Generally, what to do about dead urls in external links? Is that something there's an expectation on, or just remove them?

Overall, a nice, well presented article. Very close to GA standard and there'll be no problem passing once these few issues are fixed. SpinningSpark 17:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for my tardy reply, I checked back a few times after you posted the original note on my page but then stopped checking! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, in the course of fixing problems you seem to have mangled this sentence: "Work started on the design in 1988 at [Cray Research]]'s (CRI), while other teams company were working on competing designs." It's ungrammatical, doesn't make sense, and CRI is not an acronym of "Cray Research's".
 * On the external links, a distinction should be made between links in the external links section and links in references. Deadlinks in the external links section are useless to readers and can be removed.  For references, a further distinction should be made between links to online resources and convenience links of printed resources (journal articles, books etc).  For online resources, the link should be retained as long as the text it is referencing remains in the article and a replacement has not been found.  If possible, find a copy of the page in an archive (Wayback Machine, WebCite etc).  Most citation templates have parameters that allow adding an archive link.  See WP:DEADREF for more information.  Convenience links, on the other hand, are not essential and can be removed or replaced if dead, but the reference itself should be retained.  In any case, fixing dead links is not a GA requirement, so I only need you to fix the sentence above before I can pass it. SpinningSpark 18:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK I think I got all the dead links - which was basically all of them! - and fixed the issue you noted with my last edit. Let me know! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You still haven't said what the "I" in "CRI" stands for (presumably "Inc.") but I can live with that—passing article SpinningSpark 20:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)