Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Alan Kotok/1

Alan Kotok edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review page

Result: No action. Further comments were made on improving the article towards the criteria, and some improvements were made, but there was no consensus to list as GA. The article can, of course, be renominated at GAN at any time. Geometry guy 21:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First thank you to Mattisse for the GA review; the article is in much better shape and has organization now. Second I am at a loss how to improve this. Kotok died suddenly and had few records (as may be true of a lot of engineers and scientists). I believe that I found and added every citable bit about him, either in this article or in one of several smaller articles that it led to. I apologize for not being a writer. On the other hand, if everything known is in the article, I am not sure it is a good idea to add a lot more. Alas the League of Copyeditors Wikiproject is closed, and only a few people have edited the article (in two years I count one, other than small grammar and category fixes). I think I would probably have passed this. -SusanLesch (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, SusanLesch as done an admirable job of collecting information. I do not think it necessarily needs "more" information, as much as amplification of the information already presented, and continuity in the narrative style. I am not familiar enough with computer science info realm (e.g. what a PDP-1 is, or whether I was correct to link single user (which redirected to Multi-user) to superuser as a substitute) to give the article what it needs. Due to his achievements, Alan Kotok definately warrants a well written article describing his contributions. Since the information is all there, I urge some knowledgeable editor to put a little time into the article and make it a GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with the reviwer's assessment that this article is not yet ready to be listed, and with the analysis given of the problems. All of the necessary information seems to be there, but it's almost like it's being spat out piecemeal, with no obvious themes linking sentences together. For instance:

At MIT, Kotok earned bachelor's and master's degrees in electrical engineering. His teachers included Jack Dennis and John McCarthy. Kotok was a member of the Signals and Power Subcommittee of the student-organized Tech Model Railroad Club (TMRC) which he joined soon after starting college in 1958. Kotok and his classmates are described in the book Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution by Steven Levy.

When this appears we have no idea who Krotok's clasmates were, or why anyone would choose to write a book about them. Neither have we been introduced to Jack Dennis or John McCarthy, who are just left dangling there. The information about the model railroad club only fully makes sense when we're told later that members of the club were allowed access to the computers. The reorganisation needed probably isn't that great, but it needs to be done. The prose also needs to be tightened up and varied a little. I lost count of how many sentences start off with "Krotok ...".

I'll offer to help with this article, but I don't think the work needed can be done during this GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be wonderful if you would do that. My sense is that the author would be willing to allow this GAR to be closed for the work to be done, and then would renominate it later. The article is intriguing and I would like to be able to read it and understand the information it presents. Even the W3C stuff, which I am generally familiar with anyway, I would like some expansion on his specific his involvement there. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with the above, but in some cases it may be better to cut material than flesh it out. For instance in the personal life section, we don't need to know that the Kotok's took photographs on one of their holidays. On the other hand, we do need to know that they married in 1977. According to the Kotoks' website, Judith was previously married to Don Beck, hence the stepchildren. This makes it an anachronism to say "Judie Kotok co-founded Tech Squares at MIT in 1967." At the moment the personal life section concentrates on his wife, and is very misleading. I also found the step-children issue confusing before I figured out about Don Beck: one of the two obituaries actually refers to them as Kotok's "children", not "step-children". At the moment the two obituaries are the only reliable secondary sources for this section: the other three are the family website, the choir's myspace, and the interview.

For another short example, in the "chess" section, we have "neither Kotok nor McCarthy were known as chess players—later in life Kotok loved bridge" and "The program drew criticism from Richard Greenblatt and more recently from Hans Berliner." I don't see the relevance of the bridge. If the criticism is significant, then we need to know what they said (and when was "more recently"?) If it isn't, just cut it. Geometry guy 18:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This GAR helped in that I now have two or three specific things to work on. I don't know anything much more about W3C, Mattisse, sorry, but can understand the comment about the paragraphs in MIT and Personal life. So thank you all. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Those two or three things are done. So what do you say? Mattisse, I did find a nice video reference about starting up W3C. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a SusanLesch connected with the W3C, and I thouht perhaps you were she![1][2] If someone like Malleus, who apparently is familiar enough with the subject matter that he understands the terms used and could connect the dots, (and who offered to help with the article) would work on the article, then that seems like a wonderful solution. Malleus says that this could not be done within the time limits of the GAR. Therefore, I would recommend closing the GAR, thereby giving Malleus the time he needs to deal with the article (along anyone else who may help). Then it could be renominated at GAN and would certainly pass then. I think this is the best solution. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We'd need a to do list, otherwise we are editing towards a vague unknown, which is the reason I opened this GAR. Yes that's me (pardon I edited a space in your comment) but verifiable sources about Kotok's role are hard to find. I think I did everything on that list so far. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the role of GAR. We are here to determine whether the article meets the criteria, and give reasons. Producing a to-do list for fixing everything would take longer than actually fixing it. You have made some good improvements, and fixed some specific examples. I may make some further fixes myself, but I plan to close the GAR soon. If you are stuck for things to do, Malleus' made some general remarks about the prose style ("Kotok did this..."). Geometry guy 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason it doesn't pass now is, "Somewhat choppy with short paragraphs". Again I apologize for not being a writer but I think I could pass this. I think we are seeking something unattainable, or at least not defined. It is fine with me if you close this GAR. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]