User:SeanLoreaux/sandbox

Week 5 possible articles:
 * Vacuum Tube Computer (high importance, start class - Computing)
 * Maya Astronomy (high importance, start class)
 * Enthalpy of Mixing (low importance, stub class)SeanLoreaux (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
SeanLoreaux (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As you read, consider the following questions (but don't feel limited to these):
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Mostly, but the beginning portion focuses more on european astronomy than maya.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There seems to be a bias towards maya astronomy as opposed to Aristotelian solutions.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The section about calendric inscriptions could be expanded and maybe include a picture.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Tried a few and they worked, and the sources agreed with the statements made.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Calendar inscriptions section does not reference or cite anything, and needs some sort of reference
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Not that I could tell
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Someone had said the article was bad and should be deleted, and someone else defended the subject stating it was worthy of its own page. A few stated that they had more info but would probably not get around to improving it.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Start class, part of mesoamerica project
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * I don't believe we discussed maya astronomy much, it was interesting to learn that there were other 365 day solutions for calendars.
 * Before leaving class: Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes — ~.

Addition Plans for Vacuum Tube Computer

 * Talk about the type of circuitry used with different computer models.


 * Contribution of vacuum tube computing to world war 2.


 * Expand on the history behind the vacuum computer.Ltorack (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources for Vacuum Tube Computer
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.libproxy.mst.edu/document/1369138/

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.libproxy.mst.edu/document/6448935/

https://search-proquest-com.libproxy.mst.edu/docview/1326742768?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=14594

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.libproxy.mst.edu/document/6516706/ Ltorack (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/the-women-who-helped-crack-nazi-codes-at-bletchley-park/?tag=nl.e001&s_cid=e001&ttag=e001&ftag=TRE20d3f17 SeanLoreaux (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

New section for Utilization During WWII - ideas

 * The Heath Robinson and the Colossus were used to decipher tunny messages.
 * These computers were purpose built for the breaking code. They did not perform general calculations.
 * Operated by the Women's Royal Naval Service
 * The Heath Robinson's operating conditions were too harsh for the paper used to program to handle
 * The Colossus accommodated for this design flaw in their computer by using electromagnetic relays instead of paper punch.
 * While in the United Kingdom the computers were focused on breaking code, the computers in development in the United States were focused on general purpose applications.

New section for WWII contributions
Vacuum tube based computers had significant applications during World War II, including code breaking. After the internals of the Enigma machines were understood, there were still many rigorous calculations to be performed to decipher the daily pass code.The Women's Royal Naval Service operated many purpose-built computers in order to churn through the daily calculations to decrypt messages sent through the Enigma system. Their work in the code breaking was essential to efficiently cracking Enigma codes. The sheer amount of work required for these calculations lead to the development of the Heath Robinson and the Colossus models, early examples of these computers, which used punch paper for programming. As newer models were increasing in calculation speeds, the punch paper would be torn from the tension, requiring a new system of programming memory, and general purpose memory. SeanLoreaux (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC) SeanLoreaux (talk ) 16:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Ltorack (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Images for mainspace link: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SWAC_006.jpg https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Woman_inspecting_FOSDIC_film.jpg SeanLoreaux (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review by Seth Listhartke (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I like the start of what you've got. Your sources look good, my only concern is that because your sources are linked thorugh the S&T library servers, in order to look at them you have to have a University login. If there was anyway you could link your sources such that you woudn't have to have a University login that would be more ideal. Obviously it's hard to do an article evaluation when you don't have any sort of structure, or beginning of the article. If you could write out a paragraph or two that would be great. I would love to see your thought process, and while your outline looks great and makes sense, I would like to see how you would word or phrase the information. I like how you want to mention the fact that women were involved with the early Vacuum tube computers, and where the main ones using them, however if you could possibly go into a little more detail that would be great, maybe talk about one or two specific women who were in charge, or who made contributions to coding/operation. You mention that the United Kingdom computers were focused on breaking code, while true, maybe mention what code they were trying to break, and why computers were the only thing that could break it (without making it an opinionated point of view). You also mention that United States computers were focused on general purpose applications, what does that mean? Does that mean they were calculating ballistic trajectories, or calculating odds of specific battles, or were they focused on something other than the war. Maybe mention (if you can find information on it) why the calculations were split up in this fashion, why wasn't it the other way around?

Peer Review by Rtthb (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The language is good at being neutral. I liked how you mentioned about women working on code breaking in WWII. I also agree what Seth had said, the citations are linked through MST, when it the information should have been entered instead. For example, the first citation would have the authors,G.T. Gray ; R.Q. Smith, and the article title "Sperry Rand's first-generation computers, 1955-1960: hardware and software." The source seems generally reliable with a quick read. World War 2 should be World War II. I assume the code breaking was breaking communications of Germany, but the average reader wouldn't know that. You should add small background or simply add a Wikipedia link. I think the last line about paper punches being replaced is a bit unclear; what did they specifically replace it with? I assume general purpose memory, but the section is about WWII which makes it unclear to me.

Peer Review by Spike64113 (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? I like The mention of Womens's Royal Naval Service. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? You mention that vacuum tube computers had many uses including code breaking but don't mention much of what those were. Expanding on the other uses might round out the article a little better. Maybe talk about their use on Naval ships. Specific people that contributed to advancing the technology and/or name of specific people that worked on a project for the military in WW2 would be beneficial. Some specific dates such as when they were first implemented in war efforts and when exactly they needed the program memory to be updated. A chronological evolution of the models and capabilities would add structure and help the reader follow through their progression. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I think the most important improvement would be an expansion on the other various uses besides code breaking. It could add a lot of meat to the article.

Response to Peer Reviews
Ltorack (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding our sources, we have edited them to describe the specific article we used by including the journal, issue number, publish date, etc. instead of a link to the article through the Missouri S & T Library.
 * We noticed the common comment on women's role in vacuum computers. We plan to search for more sources which mention more specifics on their roles and any specific names as well.
 * We agree with the comment that we should be more specific about which codes were being broken by these early vacuum tube computers and we plan to provide a link to the enigma code Wikipedia page.
 * We plan to be more specific about the memory that replaced the punch paper, which was magnetic core memory. This is mentioned in the main Vacuum Tube Computer article.
 * There was a comment about other uses of vacuum tube computers and we agree that that is something we should include.
 * We will look into expanding the historical section in the article.
 * Also, we will try and find specific dates relating to implementation of these vacuum tube computers
 * Regarding a chronological list of vacuum tube computer models and capabilities, there is a Wikipedia page listing all the models. We will check if that contains the appropriate information and link the page in our article.