Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Computer/archive1

Computer
I, Vulcanstar6, am withdrawing my nomination. However, i will be creating a to-do list for the article and will continue to help expland the article.

Computers are one of the most infulential parts of everyones life. We wouldn't have WP if not for computers. Everyone has used one at one point or another. And the wealthiest man living made his fortune off of computers. I believe this meets the criteria for a FA, and so i nominate it.Vulcanstar6 22:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC) *Comment no fairuse rationale for film screenshot? Zzzzz 22:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Object Comment  Please add author, publication date, and access date to all web references when available. You may want to use cite web for this. Move all footnotes after puncuation marks and don't use two commas just because there are two footnotes. Add fair use rationale to the film screenshot. This article needs more references. In particular, I would expect an article on a subject like this to include more book references. The book reference that is currently there is missing some information, such as the publisher and date. It would be nice if the appropriate page number was given also.  Pagra shtak  22:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The film screenshot already has fair use rationale on its page. as for the references, i'll get on that.Vulcanstar6 22:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing licensing information with fair use rationale. Read the "to the uploader:" text in the licensing information box on the image page.  Pagra shtak  22:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, im kinda new at this. i'll read that. and then i may need help with some other things you pointed out. Vulcanstar6 22:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So would this be fiar use rationale: "fair use because it's just a part of the frame and is used to illustrate the development of CGI (research/education) and has no commercial effect on the film" (paranoid put this on the pictures page)Vulcanstar6 23:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * you need to explicity describe why its fairuse in the Computer article specifically. Zzzzz 23:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This sounds awfully noob, but, where in the article.Vulcanstar6 23:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * not in the article, on the image page. have a look at Image use policy and Image copyright tags. as a guide you could look at the images on Hong Kong action cinema. Zzzzz 23:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kindness, and help. I have added a fair use summary to the pictures page. Vulcanstar6 23:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have fix the punctuation problems with the footnotes, and removed the comma between the footnotes. Vulcanstar6 23:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Minor object. Good article, which would probably pass a year ago, but our (my?) standards are higher now. 1) Add a picture to the lead and merge the first tiny sentence into other para (or expand into a proper para). 2) only 10 inline citations? 3) too many see alsos. My rule of thumb: a) see alsos should be incorporated into main body or removed as irrelevant b) if something is in main body it should not be in see also c) good articles have tiny or no see also section. 4) only one relevant external link? 5) and only one book in references?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * im going to find a pic for the lead right now, and incorporate the first sentance. i'll get to the others soon... Vulcanstar6 02:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone else added the pic to the lead, i made the first sentance a "not to be confused". as that was its intention. Also, the "see also"'s are large in number becuase "computer" is a broad subject. there are many branchs from it.Vulcanstar6 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Object: The article confuses the specifics of how particular modern day computers work with the general, abstract concept of what a computer is. This is a 'big subject' article - it needs to steer clear of the small specifics and distill out the essence of what a computer is.  Where is the discussion of Turing completeness - there is a throw-away mention of the Church-Turing thesis...these are really the key matters.  For example (although there are many), the article states that the ALU, I/O and memory are connected with "a bundle of wires" - well, that hasn't been true for a very long time now - and even when it was true, it wasn't NECESSARILY true.  A computer can be made from gears and pushrods - or from pneumatics or it might have an optical bus or it the parts might be connected with radio links - or it might be made of DNA or Qbits in a quantum computer.  Diving into the detailed specifics of the workings of a circa 1980's desktop machine is completely inappropriate here.  Even in an actual, practical computer - it's been a long time since memory and I/O were on the same bus in (for example) a PC.  Practical computers such as the SGI ONYX range have hierarchies of busses connecting multiple CPU's to multiple memory banks.  Then we have statements that an ALU can perform two classes of operations - arithmetic and comparisons.  This is screwy.  A comparison is typically just a subtract followed by examination of the status bits...what about LOGICAL operations - AND, OR, XOR, SHIFT ?  Plus, it's perfectly possible to design a functional computer that passes the Church Turing test without being able to do any kind of arithmetic whatever (I know - I've designed one).  Then the article spirals out of control - talking about things like the Internet which actually have very little to do with computers.  In my opinion, this article is the kind of thing you get when you don't have a clear concept of what the ESSENCE of a computer is.  SteveBaker 03:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose: Per Steve's comments; he gave enough details. I've personally written a computer-related FA, and Computer just isn't nearly there yet. -- uberpenguin
 * Thanks for agreeing with me! I took my detailed objections to the Talk:Computer page - there I picked a section from the article at random and examined each sentence in turn.  I found good reasons to discount the claims of every single sentence.  I'm pretty sure one could do this for almost any section of the article. SteveBaker 03:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)