Talk:Matchbox Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine

(Redirected from Talk:Matchbox Educable Noughts And Crosses Engine)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by WikiMacaroons in topic Analog Computer

Did you know nomination

edit
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk12:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Created by WikiMacaroons (talk) and FinnberlyRobin (talk). Nominated by WikiMacaroons (talk) at 10:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC).Reply

  •   @WikiMacaroons and FinnberlyRobin: Welcome to DYK! Moved into mainspace in a timely manner (7 days prior) and long enough. Neither contributor has ever had a DYK, so you are QPQ-exempt. No close paraphrasing or copyvio issues. I do, however, worry about some of the source quality, especially WikiHow, [1], and an AI class. There are also some paragraphs whose final sentences do not contain an inline citation, which needs to be addressed. Are there any higher-quality sources to use? This could be a great hook if we can get the sourcing straightened out. Raymie (tc) 18:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your response, Raymie. I added some of those refs back when I didn't super understand referencing, but I expect I could find some more sources, as well as some of the existing sources addressing the unreferenced material. WikiMacaroons (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@WikiMacaroons: Just ping me when you think you have the reference issues fixed. Raymie (tc) 19:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Raymie:, I think I've fixed the referencing. I added references to some broad unsourced statements, as well as removing less credible sources. WikiMacaroons (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Great work WikiMacaroons. Can you get inline citations to end the paragraphs that end in "matchboxes and beads" and "computational thinking"? Also a note for the future: citations go after punctuation, not before. Raymie (tc) 17:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Raymie: Ok, I think I've cleared it up, ping me if you want me to change anything else :) WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 14:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  It's good to go then! Raymie (tc) 16:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Right, I think I've fixed everything @Yoninah:... please let me know if there's anything else WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 07:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Finishing a game

edit

In this section, it is not specified what the consequence is for MENACE if the game ends in a draw. This is significant in understanding how the machine learns, as the article indicates that draws are common. One might assume that a draw means that the beads are simply returned to their drawers, but if so this should be stated clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.93.144 (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Computer simulation

edit

The article said that Michie wrote a program for an IBM Personal Computer. This is very unlikey, as Michie's work was done in the 1960s, but the IBM PC did not appear until 1981. The cited source simply refers to an IBM computer. I have therefore removed the word Personal.

I also used the opportunity to add link to the Pegasus computer mentioned in the same paragraph.

A very interesting article, by the way. -- Mike Marchmont (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, @Mike Marchmont, and thanks for fixing that WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 15:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Mscroggs

edit

Hey @JuPitEer, I noticed you've added a couple of citations from Matthew Scroggs' Blog. It contains a lot of useful things, but I was wondering if it would be considered reliable as per WP:CITE, because it is a blog. Thanks :) WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 10:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Maybe not. I'm pretty sure the information about how the machine works is also in the Martin Gardner and Donald Michie articles that the blog post cites, so I'll dig those out and update the citations. ―JuPitEer (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Matchbox Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 16:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

edit
  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
  • It contains copyright infringements -
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -
edit

Prose

edit

Lede

edit

General

edit

GA Review

edit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Review meta comments

edit

Analog Computer

edit

Is this an Analogue computer? or a Digital Computer? I would say it would be a digital computer since the state of each matchbox is set by a finite number of permutations of balls within each matchbox. The entire computer could easily be simulated using an electronic digital computer. However, just because the matchbox's are not electronic, doesn't mean it doesn't qualify as a digital computer. If it was analog, you could have 1/2 a ball, or 1/8 of a ball, or any fraction of a ball in the box, which would vary the output. But, it doesn't work this way. It is either ball, or no ball. discrete values. It is quite possible to create an exact copy of the model that is run on this matchbox computer, and run this on another similar 'hardware', and would give exact same results. Again, this is another tenant of digital computers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.252.130.191 (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

You're quite correct, I'll switch "Analog" to "Mechanical". Thank you for pointing this out. WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 11:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply