Talk:Tom Kilburn

Tom Kilburn has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 4, 2016. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Tom Kilburn appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 March 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Tom Kilburn (pictured), the co-creator of the world's first stored-program computer, did not own a personal computer?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Kilburn.

Wikipedia

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Greater Manchester Low‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Early computers task force.

Emphasise CRT storage capacity?

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)[reply]

News item from 1978

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)[reply]

GA Review

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)[reply]

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! Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 23:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 05:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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! Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 22:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE: Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh whoops! Sorry, didn't read that. Overall: ✓ Pass. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 04:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging: @Hawkeye7: Congratulations!