# Talk:Alan Kotok

IMHO article needs more work at least on W3C, telephony, bridge, security, system software and significance of DEC machines after the PDP-6. Also somewhere in Wikipedia, a screen shot from Spacewar! running on the Computer History Museum's restored PDP-1 would be great (the phosphors give the ships tails). --Susanlesch 15:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Spacewar! photo added 21 July Susanlesch 04:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
W3C at Stata Center added 26 December Susanlesch 07:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Someday this entry should mention and link to a separate page for Alan B. Kotok. -Susanlesch 22:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mention added at the top. --Susanlesch 11:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

In the Computer History Museum video celebrating the PDP-1 restoration, there is a mention of T-Square possibly being the "first electronic drafting" program, and that it used the Spacewar! controllers. Spacewar! apparently first ran in February 1962. In his MIT PhD thesis published in 1963, Ivan Sutherland explains he completed an early version of Sketchpad that could draw parallel and perpendicular lines in November 1961. Sutherland goes on to say, "Somewhat before my first effort was working, Welden Clark of Bolt, Beranek and Newman..." showed him a "similar program" running on a PDP-1. It would be interesting to know what program that was. --Susanlesch 10:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph saying relationship is "unknown" copied to new stub T-Square (software). Clark's publications might or might not hold an answer. --Susanlesch 22:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made a few tweaks, but that is all I plan to do for now. If you need a copyeditor before the next GAN, feel free to let me know (I'm not a very good one, but I understand the context and am at least another pair of eyes). Geometry guy 21:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Geometry guy! If you are serious about offering to copyedit, you lifted my spirits. Hurray. One source left in question: http://www.samizdat.com/ibg.html. Do you think that the direct quote there could be allowed at GAN (and FAC)? It explains several years of the subject's life and could be a primary source. Samizdat.com is probably as old as Google but some people might call it self-published. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I've done a bit more and a bit less than copyedit. More because I've removed some content that seemed to me to be tangential. Less because I think more copyediting work may be needed. However, a priority right now should be WP:LEAD. The current lead is very weak and needs to be expanded to 2-3 paragraphs which touch on the main points of the article. I don't mind giving it a shot this weekend, but I need to be sure I have understood the main points, hence my copyediting++. As for the source, I'm not sure: in my view the reliability of a source should be judged in the context of the material that is being sourced. In this case it is pretty factual, so some leniency is OK. You can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard for other opinions. Geometry guy 23:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The lead is better now. Also I cut some details that couldn't be cited. If you think it is ready say go. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest renomination now. There may still be GA concerns, but given your willingness to fix issues raised, and the closeness of the article to the GA standard, there's a good chance that you'll get a review with a positive outcome. Geometry guy 23:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alan Kotok/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
The lead could use some expansion. All three paragraphs are fairly short, and the lead doesn't feel like it gives a solid overview of the article.
Is it better now?
It is still really short. To be a true paragraph, one needs to have at least three sentences. Now that I have combined the last two paragraphs you have the first paragraph with two sentences, the second with three sentences and the third with two sentences. Do you see what I'm getting at? These are all really short paragraphs. Make sure that you're summarizing the entire article - for example, at the moment, I don't see anything in the lead that summarizes the Personal life section.
Added a bit of Personal life. Yes, I understand what you're saying. Perhaps you are used to longer articles. Let me know if you need more.
In the Software section, why is "true hackers" in italics?
Fixed.
In the second paragraph of the Digital section, it says "Digital photographed Bell and Kotok at the PDP-6." Why is this a notable enough fact to include in the article?
Good question. We don't know for sure what is pictured, but it was likely the first around-the-world network. I can move it to external links?
I suppose it would work in the external links, if it's really that important. Someone having a photo taken of themselves, even if it is at an important moment, is not really worthy enough to be mentioned in the article. People take photos of important moments all the time. I don't think that the Barrack Obama article says "he became the first black president of the US, and so lots of people took his photo"...
Omitted.

In the last paragraph of the Web section, "BoF" is a disambig page and I have no idea what it means. Please spell it out and wikilink to the correct page.
Thank you. Fixed.
In the second paragraph of the W3C section, it says "He briefly led the Technology and Society Domain with activity". I'm a little confused at this wording. Is the TSD a listing of techies that ranks by activity? Or do you mean "led" as in he was a Chairman/President/etc?
Yes he was a chairman. Reworded.
It's still confusing. Why not just say straight out that he was chairman?
Says now straight out that he was Domain Leader.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Please make sure that all web references have publishers and access dates.
Fixed.
Refs 5 and 6 are still missing publishers.
Fixed.
Please combine identical references. For example, I believe refs 1 and 6 are the same ref, even though they are formatted differently.
Combined.
Ref 36 (Anne Stuart) deadlinks.
Aha. Fixed.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I found a few issues with prose/MOS and referencing, so I am placing this review on hold. Overall, though, this is a very nice little article, and very close to GA status. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Dana boomer (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I've interspersed my replies above. Items that I believe to be completed I have struck. Dana boomer (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, the article looks good, so I'm passing it to GA status. Thanks for all the work you've done and your prompt response. Dana boomer (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Dana boomer. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I see the article has much improved through the GAN collaboration between SusanLesch and the reviewer Dana Boomer, resulting in a well deserved GA. If you want to take the article further, the prose still needs work: in particular long run-on sentences are a recurring problem. I also added a cn tag. I hope a source can be found as it is an important and interesting point. Geometry guy 20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Geometry guy. The cn is cited now. I can't help with the prose. Do you know anyone who can? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The most obvious person to ask is Malleus Fatuorum, who has the relevant technical knowledge and is also very good at copyediting in my experience. You could also ask Dank. I've read and reread the prose too much myself to be a good copyeditor. Geometry guy 23:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)