# Talk:Tom Kilburn

Where you say:
"Kilburn and Williams collaboratively developed a storage device based on a cathode ray tube and capable of storing a single bit."
I think it needs emphasing that by the time this idea was used in the first stored program machine the CRT held a whole screen full of bits dancing in real time.  Might not be obvious to the layman.
My authority for saying this is that I attended an open day at Manchester in the late 70's and saw a machine, albeit unpowered, and it was explained to me how it worked.  I believe there was random access on a per raster line basis.
Hope this helps,
Nic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.65.49 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I have lately scanned and uploaded a news item from the Manchester Evening News, 21/6/1978, on the 30 year anniversary of the "baby". This might be useful as a source of citations, etc. http://www.irrelevant.com/manchesterbaby/ Robirrelevant (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tom Kilburn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Yoshi24517 (talk · contribs) 23:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing your article. Tagging @Rcsprinter123:
Per the guidelines at WP:WIAGA,
1. Well-written  Pass

1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct  Pass It is very clear and concise. Anyone who knows nothing about Tom Kilburn can find meaningful content on this page.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation  Pass Great job! There are no problems with how the headers should be set up, as with WP:MOS.
2. Verifiable with no original research

2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline  Pass There are no blogs, or anything of the sort that is not verifiable.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)  Pass Great job! They are all reliable sources.
2c. it contains no original research  Pass There is no original research. Everything is linked to a reliable source.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism  Pass Accoring to here [1], there is a little bit of a copyright violation, but that is a reliable source that is cited.
3. Broad in its coverage  Pass

3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic  Pass The article is very broad. The article does address the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)  Pass The does go a little into detail, but it is fine. (Nothing a little editing can't fix.)
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each  Pass Per WP:NPOV, there are no opinions or anything of that sort.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute  Pass I have checked the edit history, and there are no edit wars going on. Great Job!
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio  Pass There are many images in the article.

Extra Things to Correct:

Please expand the lead, as per WP:LEAD.
Please make the spelling of words so that they follow British or American spelling.
This is what I have reviewed. If you can fix those extra things, I will pass the article. Thanks! Yoshi24517Chat Online 23:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@Yoshi24517: This article has 9,585 characters readable prose, so per WP:LEADLENGTH, it should have a lead of one or two paragraphs. I have doubled it in length to two paragraphs. I have run a spelling check on the article, and I think we have corrected all the spelling errors. Hope this addresses all the issues. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I'm a little busy, so I won't be able to pass the article until tomorrow. I'll check for anything else that need fixing. Yoshi24517Chat Online 05:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: I found the quote you put near the bottom of the article. Please put quotations marks on the quote that the article has. Thanks! Yoshi24517Chat Online 22:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE: Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh whoops! Sorry, didn't read that. Overall:  Pass. Yoshi24517Chat Online 04:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Pinging: @Hawkeye7: Congratulations!