User:Smitsuno/sandbox

The article I decided to critique for this assignment is "IMB Shoebox", which is about a computer developed by IBM that can recognize speech and "perform mathematical functions". There is very little information regarding this computer, most likely because it was developed more than 50 years ago. There is one citation used about the functionality of the computer, and the information was from IBM's website. Because the statement regarding the functionality was objective, I see no issues with retrieving such information from IBM themselves. However I believe that there can be some bias if the only source for IBM’s computer is IBM. This would not necessarily be a neutral source. Everything included in the article was relevant to the computer, but lacking in information.

There was one statement that stood out to me as being somewhat subjective, and may potentially show some bias that the author of this article could have had. The sentence “The clever part of the design was in noticing...”, to me, shows a subjective view that the author had regarding this computer. By saying that it was “clever”, it shows the author’s views, which should not be the case on a wikipedia article. The use of word indicates to me that the author thinks highly of the computer developed by IBM, and also indicates that he may write only good things about the computer. This subtle word may impact how the whole article is perceived by the reader, and may potentially make this article less credible. Perhaps a better way of saying it would simply to say “the design was ...”, as it is an objective statement.

Some points are underrepresented, for example, there is no talk regarding what happened with the computer, and the development that happened afterwards. Another point that is underrepresented is the process on how the computer perceives the spoken text. It is still unclear how the text was spoken. Also, everything, including things like the inner workings of the computer and the physical attributes of it, is under the section labeled “History”. This may be because the lack of content, but adding all this information under one section underrepresents a lot of the data. There is a lot of information missing in this article that could be added. For example, there is no information about who developed the computer, but I was able to find that William C. Dersch was in charge of its development. This information can be very valuable and can add more depth to this article. In the end, however, it is not the fault of the authors. Because this computer was developed long ago, many people simply do not know about it, let alone write about it. Therefore, for very specific things like this, more in-depth research is needed. Although this article may seem unimportant, it may have possibly laid foundation on the speech recognition technology we have today.

This is a test statement for citations.

I chose to look into the same article I previously analyzed, IBM ShoeBox. My interest in this specific article was due to my interest in human-computer interaction. This computer developed by IBM is near 50 years old, and could be potentially considered one of the first attempts at natural language processing. What also interested me was the name of the "computer", shoebox, which was apparently named because it about the size of an American shoe box. Additionally, the article was very short and lacked content, most likely because of how old and little documentation there is on the internet. All of these factors made this article a great candidate for me to edit and add content to.

Drafting my edits :
The first thing I would like to add to is the lack of content, Ideally I would like to add 1-2 sentences to add more content to the page. - one sentence to give credit to who developed the IBM Shoebox - one sentence to add a fact to the article

Another thing I would like to edit is the sentence "The clever part of the design was in noticing that each digit name “Zero”, “One”, Two” … “Nine” had a front, middle, and ending sound". The use of the word clever signifies an authors opinion, and articles on wikipedia should contain neutral and factual points. I believe that it is up to the reader to decide if the design was "clever". -restructure the sentence to provide a more neutral statement.