Talk:Moore's law/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 21:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Initial thoughts:

• There are two links that need to be routed to specific pages. See dablinks for details. Report now clean ~Kvng (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Make sure all images have alt-text. Currently none of them do. Added ~Kvng (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Lots of issues with external links. See the report for details. I recommend finding archived versions of the websites using the Way Back Machine when possible. This eliminates issues with retrieval. This tool doesn't appear to be particularly reliable ~Kvng (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • I would expect that the lead would credit Gordon Moore in the first or second sentence, rather than the third paragraph! In fact, that third paragraph should probably come first. ~KvnG 16:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
   • Not sure why there has to be all those separate subsections in the "Consequences" section. Just make them regular paragraphs. ~KvnG 17:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
   • Do not put notes or wikilinks inside of direct quotes. This is all over the article. ~KvnG 14:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
   • The "See also" section is too big. Several of the items on the list are already linked in the article, making them unnecessary in this list. Other items are unnecessary, such as "quantum computing" and "Second half of the cheesboard". Wha? Unless it's directly related to the subject of the article, and would be of direct interest to a general reader of this article, don't include it in this section. Thinned ~Kvng (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
   • OK, so you wikilink "K" for Kelvin, but not "C" for Celsius? C'mon, editors. ~KvnG 15:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Plenty of references throughout, and the citations are mostly written properly. Some do not have enough information, such as author, date, publishers (for example, #1...).

   The section on "Major enabling factors" is pretty much synthesis and OR. A cited source in this section is from an related paper from 1963. No other reference is given that this source, older than Moore's own paper, was "enabling". Complete OR. Other innovations cited here, such as the IBM/Georgia Tech speed record, have a reference that doesn't even mention Moore's Law. More synth. This is not becoming of a Good Article. This article editors need to take a close look at the text and the attached sources to fix problems like this. Very significant upgrades since reviewed revision ~Kvng (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • Article hits the major points.
   • However, this article replete with digressions and trivia. Does a general reader really need to know that Intel gave $10,000 to a man from the UK for his magazine? Maybe if there was some surrounding context for the bit, but right now that sticks out as trivia. Moved this trivia to Notes ~Kvng (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Almost as soon as the article begins, it goes off-topic into "alternate formulations", even while admitting that "Moore himself wrote only about the density of components (or transistors) at minimum cost." So, stay on-topic. Get the material about Moore's Law at the beginning and put the offshoots and alternative formulations at, or near, the end of the article. Moore's law § Other formulations and similar observations is now at the end of the article. ~Kvng (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
   • The whole section on futurists is too much. It could be condensed into one or two paragraphs, minus so many indulgent quotes, and not lose any of the content. Section no longer in the article. ~Kvng (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Doesn't seem particularly biased.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   In the last month, there was an edit war. Looking at a longer time span in the past few months, I see there is significant back and forth in terms of the article's size. This article is currently not stable by my reckoning.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • All images need alt text. Done ~Kvng (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
   • Lose the animated image. It doesn't illustrate anything meaningful for a general reader, and its caption is complete traxoline. Animation represents cutting-edge technology which seems applicable to Recent trends section. Simplified caption. ~Kvng (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
   • The main image is small and difficult to read. Are you sure you want this to represent the concept? Can a more concise image easily readable at this resolution be made? New larger image with some color ~Kvng (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

7. Overall: This article has some serious problems that prevent me from passing the GAN, or even putting it on hold. Three major issues: prose/MOS, original research, and focus. This article seems to be half about topics OTHER than Moore's Law. There are numerous instances of synthesis from sources that don't directly mention Moore's Law. The prose, and even image captions at one point, are too technical for general readers. I'm not saying it needs to be dumbed down. It needs to be fundamentally rewritten to focus on the subject itself and explain the broad points to a general reader. Avoid digressions and speculations.

   Pass/Fail:

21 February 2012‎ MtneerInTN edit should be undone, because it replaces a valid reference to a wikipedia chart reference, which is not allowed, because wikipedia sources cannot be used as references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.153.227.144 (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.153.227.144 (talk)

Editor comments

Please place comments and questions for the reviewer in this section.

Prefetching disambiguation - It seems clear to me that this refers to instruction prefetch ( since the issue is with unused processors, prefetching the next instruction would save time if the instruction is used).

Also: The internet, particularly cloud computing is another circumvention of the physical limits of a computer. since both memory and processing power available to the computer user have increased by using the net, while staying within moderate size weight and cost. a paragraph on this would not be out of place.

since there has been an edit war i'm not adding anything - if my ideas are of value then someone else will take them up. Sosci (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)