Jump to content

Talk:Vannevar Bush/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 12:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Headings

[edit]

Have you considered spelling out the initialisms used in the headings? I'm not entirely certain, but I think best practice is to avoid initialisms in the headings unless they are generally well known by the public. I don't think most civilians know what NACA, NDRC, and OSRD mean. So, instead of

2.2 NACA
2.3 NDRC
2.4 OSRD

you would have

2.2 National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
2.3 National Defense Research Committee
2.4 Office of Scientific Research and Development

I actually don't know the answer to this, but I am bringing it to your attention. Personally, I think you could make a good argument either way. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Infobox

[edit]

Lead

[edit]
  • Bush constructed a Differential Analyser
    • Stylized uppercase and italics is generally unheard of and discouraged, is it not? I ask because I think I recall seeing a variation on this usage in older print encyclopedias, such as the use of caps in the first instance of a term as a style convention, but I think it is more common to see bold instead. Do you think it requires italics or uppercase? I'm not convinced it does, but this might be your own approach, possibly a wink and a nod to those dusty encyclopedias of yesteryear?
  • Analog computer is linked twice in the lead (analog computing, analog computer)
  • Vannevar Bush is often described as an inventor; he is credited with at least six different inventions of note (although I suspect that Google will show many more). Does this lead section give this impression?
  • Isn't his post-war work with the Carnegie Institute where he "was an outspoken advocate of continued support of scientific research by the government"[1] important to mention in the lead?
  • his political role in the development of the atomic bomb as a primary organizer of the Manhattan Project
    • I've read this several times now and I must say, I don't like it. It's too wordy and confusing. Why not just say "primary organizer of the Manhattan Project" as the development of the atomic bomb is implicit in that statement? I don't see the need to say "political role" since having the role of primary organizer is political by nature of its association with the government.
  • An offshoot of the work at MIT was the beginning of digital circuit design theory.
  • For the record, the focus on dates instead of concepts and ideas in the lead is very distracting. However, this will be a subject for a FA review, as these style concerns go beyond GA.
  • In his report to the President Science, The Endless Frontier, Bush called for an expansion of government support for science
    • This doesn't work because the "President" becomes part of the title of the report. You could say, "In Science, The Endless Frontier, his report to the president of the United States, Bush called for..." Or you could just eliminate the title.
  • In July 1945, Bush published his As We May Think in the Atlantic Monthly
    • Is it necessary to keep giving the date? Often times, we can just place the date for a publication in parentheses next to the work like this: As We May Think (1945). This works particularly well in lead sections, where we should focus on brevity. Is it really all that important to mention it was published in the Atlantic Monthly? There's also no need to say "his". You might also want to lose the long quote. Just say something like, "Bush predicted the advent of information technology in his essay As We May Think (1945), influencing generations of computer scientists who drew inspiration from his vision of the future." Or something concise like that.
      • Do not like using parentheses like that. I think the dates are important, as they contextualize the information. It is emphasized that Bush came up with the hyperlink concept before there was a web, and internet, or even many computers. This emphasizes the visionary nature of the memex. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fine; it is only one standard way of referring to a public work with less text, which makes it easier to read. Dates are important, but best used sparingly in the lead section, with more of a focus on summarizing main points and communicating concepts.
  • Regarding the Memex quote in the last paragraph, per WP:LEADCITE it is best practice to always cite quotations in the lead, even if they are already cited in the body. If you know of an exception to this rule, then please ignore this request.
  • Lead should mention the proximity fuse

Early life and work

[edit]
  • Footnote eight, "Raytheon Company - History". Raytheon. Retrieved April 1, 2012" should be attributed to Gale. I'll have to look at the actual cite in the database, but it's probably something like International Directory of Company Histories, St. James Press.
  • Not that it matters, but the IEEE recommends citing footnote ten as: Claude E. Shannon, an oral history conducted in 1982 by Robert Price. IEEE History Center, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
  • Bush and the other test men were stood down as punishment after a fire broke out at the plant
    • Isn't "stood down" used more in Australia, New Zealand, and the UK as a synonym for "suspended"? Is it ever used in American English? Per WP:TIES, should we be using that word in an article about an American with strong national ties to his country? Should it be removed per WP:COMMONALITY? I don't know the answer, so I'm just bringing this to your attention.
  • Bush was awarded a $1,500 scholarship to study at Clark University as a doctoral student of Arthur Gordon Webster, but Webster wanted Bush to study acoustics, so Bush quit instead. He then enrolled in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) electrical engineering program.
    • This is a bit confusing. I'm guessing, but it sounds like you are trying to say that Bush didn't accept the scholarship because he wanted to study electrical engineering, not acoustics. If so, is there a way you can reword this for clarity? Saying "Webster wanted Bush to study acoustics, so Bush quit instead" leaves me guessing why he quit, and logically, we discover that he enrolled at MIT instead. But it leaves me wondering why instead of just saying, "Bush was awarded a $1,500 scholarship to study at Clark University as a doctoral student of Arthur Gordon Webster. Bush wanted to study electrical engineering, but Webster wanted Bush to study acoustics, so Bush quit instead." If this is true, does that make more sense? Viriditas (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bush finished his thesis in April 1916
    • His dissertation was titled Oscillating-Current Circuits: An Extension of the Theory of Generalized Angular Velocities, with Applications to the Coupled Circuit and the Artificial Transmission Line,[2] or Oscillating-Current Circuits for short. Should it be listed under publications?
  • For his master's thesis, he invented and patented a "profile tracer", a device based on two bicycle wheels that mapped the terrain over which it traveled.'
    • The sources refer to this as a surveying instrument/device/machine, which helps the reader understand.
  • Is there any mention of the product integraph (aka continuous integraph)?[3]
  • Tufts allowed students to gain a master's degree in four years simultaneously with a bachelor's degree, so Bush took this route
    • The "so Bush took this route" always throws me off when I read it. Obviously, it implies he wanted to take advantage of Tufts' program, but it comes off as very informal.
  • On graduation in 1913 he therefore received both bachelor of science and master of science degrees.
    • "Bush completed the four year program at Tufts in 1913 and received both a bachelor of science and a master of science degree." No need for "on graduation" or "therefore".
  • but Bush and the other test men were suspended as punishment after a fire broke out at the plant.
    • "but after a fire broke out at the plant, Bush and the test men were punished with suspension." Or, "but after a fire broke out at the plant, Bush and the test men were suspended."
  • During World War I Bush worked with the National Research Council, attempting to develop a means of detecting submarines magnetically
    • "During World War I, Bush worked with the National Research Council to research and develop technology that used magnetic fields to detect submarines."
  • Bush's device worked as designed, but only worked from a wooden ship, not a metal one like a destroyer, and attempts, at the U.S. Navy's insistence, to get it to work on a metal ship failed.
    • "Bush's device worked as designed, but only from a wooden ship, not a ship made from metal like a destroyer. Attempts, at the U.S. Navy's request, to use the device from a metal ship, failed."
  • "Bush left Tufts, but not AMRAD, in 1919"
    • That's unusual wording. You probably mean "Bush left Tufts, but remained employed with AMRAD" or something along those lines. I think it is best to prompt the reader at times.
  • Bush wrote an introductory textbook, Principles of Electrical Engineering, in 1922.
    • You placed that statement in sort of a strange place. I realize that you are trying to construct a narrative based on chronology, but you need more than just a date to link this between the previous and subsequent sentences. It appears completely out of the blue with no qualification. Perhaps it would be easier to just expand it with a bit more about the work, such as the name of his co-author and the legacy of the work. You also left it out of the bibliography which is bit strange considering the historical importance of the text.
      • It is in the bibliography already. I have no more information about it. It rates only half a paragraph in his biography. WoldCat informs me that a second edition was published in 1951. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I bring it up because I remember reading something about the importance of this text a while back, so there is more to say about it if you choose to do so.

World War II period

[edit]
  • Footnote 26[4] should have more information about the citation: Franklin D. Roosevelt: "Executive Order 8807 Establishing the Office of Scientific Research and Development.," June 28, 1941. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.
  • Merriam had attempted to curtail Laughlin's without success.
  • Concerned about the lack of coordination in scientific research and the requirements of defense mobilization, Bush proposed a general directive agency in the federal government, which he often discussed with his colleagues
    • That's fine, however you go on to list his colleagues: "Karl T. Compton; James B. Conant, the President of Harvard University; and Frank B. Jewett, President of the National Academy of Sciences and chairman of the Board of Directors of Bell Laboratories." Why is it important for the reader to know this? Would it help to just put it in a footnote instead?
  • Bush declined to provide NDRC funding for it on the grounds that he did not believe that it could not be completed before the war ended.
    • Do you mean to say he didn't believe that it could be completed before the end of the war? Saying that he did not believe that it could not be completed is confusing.
      • I fixed it.
  • However, Bowen would try again after the war.
    • Try what? It helps to prompt the reader with added redundancy, since we assume they know nothing about the topic.
  • A radar set had to be miniaturized to fit inside a shell
    • Which source says that?
      • Furer, p. 347. I'm summarising. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm. Is that accurate? It's dated 1959 and published by the GPO. Can you look at this 2005 source for parity? Thanks.
        • This fuze operates as a miniature sending and receiving radio station in the nose of a shell. When the shell leaves the gun, this station begins to send out a continuous radio frequency signal, not a short pulse as in radar. As the projectile approaches its target, the radio signal is reflected back and operates to detonate the explosive charge.
          The basic components of a radio fuze are (1) miniature �rugged� vacuum tubes, strong enough to stand the tremendous stresses of being shot from a gun, as essential elements of simple electrical circuits; (2) a miniature rugged battery to provide electrical power; and (3) safety devices to prevent operation of the fuze until it had traveled a safe distance from the gun. (Tuve and Roberts, 10)           Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, but let's put aside that matter for the moment. Why do we have an entire section about the proximity fuze in this biography? Is most of this material important to understand Bush, the person? Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Bush's main claim to fame is his role with the Manhattan Project; the Proximity fuze was the next most successful NDRC/OSRD project. Like Manhattan, it came directly under Bush. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Consider that while it may be an important technological development when discussing the history of the NDRC, its importance to the reader isn't made clear in this biography. For any example of the kind of importance I'm talking about, consult any number of sources that make the reader aware of this importance. For example, Lide (2001): "Vannevar Bush is said to have considered the radio proximity fuze the preeminent scientific and technical advance of the war. Considering the Manhattan Project and radar, this is a startling statement. Another historian ranked the fuze as..."among the three or four most extraordinary scientific achievements of the war."[5]
  • Bush soon became dissatisfied with the dilatory way the project was being run, with dithering over the selection of sites for the pilot plants.
    • Avoid alliteration.
  • Eventually, they agreed to allow its use from December 25.
    • That doesn't make much sense.
  • AA-3...AAA'
    • You are assuming the reader knows what this technical jargon means. Either link to the explanation or briefly explain it.

Post-war years

[edit]
  • The fourth paragraph of the Memex concept section is partly sourced to The New Media Reader (2003) edited by Wardrip-Fruin and Montfort, but it is unclear if it also acts as a source for the previous seven (or so) sentences, in particular, the part that says "The Bushian philosophy of digital media is more focused on using facts to build something creative that will better our world. Bush sees art as a tool to help with that process. Instead of using emotion as a base, the Bushian view uses reason and logic." One reason I ask for more information about a source here is because it is unintentionally contradictory. Creativity is often described as an emotion, and the idea that one would create something to "better our world" is certainly considered an emotion; art more so. Reason and logic have no need for optimism, and can be used to create perfect dystopias, so this passage could be confusing to readers. On the other hand, I think I know what you are trying to say, which is why specifying or attributing a source here will help.
  • The third paragraph of the "Later life" section uses the phrase "he was also" twice in a row.
  • Genetics was not the only field to face the axe: Bush gutted Carnegie's archeology program, setting the field back many years in the United States.
    • This refers to the dismantling and closing of the Eugenics Record Office (whose advocacy of forced sterilization become hugely controversial) and compares it to the cutting of an archaeology program and later, the humanities. It seems a bit of a stretch (or a gaping understatement) to call this "genetics" and compare it with non-controversial programs when Laughlin's work formed the basis for racial profiling and Nazi eugenics. It might help to revisit contemporary sources on this one.
      • You so don't want to. There was a lot of support for Laughlin. What was bothering Bush was its increasingly unscientific aspects. The revulsion against eugenics really happened in the post war period. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree. Can you say that Bush was bothered by its unscientific approach? If you have sources for that, it would help the reader a great deal. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • And just for the record, I am not going to go "there", but the information that you have alluded to has been known by the public for some time. However, since this information is so new, I don't think we're in a position to cover it just yet. That's all I'm going to say on this matter. Others can do the research if they feel like, but indeed, it is a huge can of worms that I'm not going to open.
  • Is there any mention of the irony that Bush was critical of the ENIAC project (and allegedly refused to fund it)? Also, does the article explain the difference between Bush's analog computing devices and digital successors? Claude Shannon is briefly mentioned in the early life section, but it doesn't mention how Bush's differential analyzer led Shannon to some of the ideas contained within his landmark thesis, A Symbolic Analysis of Relay and Switching Circuits.
  • During the war OSRD had let contracts as it had seen fit.
    • Like the use of "stood down" I mentioned above in the "Early life and work" section, the use of "let" here another example of the difference between British/Australian English. Since this an article about an American "with strong national ties to his country", should we avoid this wording?
  • In As We May Think, Nelson wrote, "writing is a process of making the tree of thought into a picket fence".
    • Unfortunately, that makes little to no sense. I'll look at the JSTOR article for the original context.
      • I believe I have discovered the problem. Nelson did not write As We May Think. Nelson wrote As We Will Think. Big difference, wouldn't you say?
        • After looking at the original source,[6] I have removed the entire sentence.[7] I'm not sure if this an artifact of an older version, but as far as I can tell from looking at p. 671 of Crawford 1996, this has nothing to do with Bush. Of course, the only way to know for sure is to look at the text Crawford is quoting, namely "As We Will Think".[8] As you can see, Nelson is talking about writing in relation to hypertext. It isn't at all clear why this was originally added, but it looks like it was a mistake, so I've removed it.
  • Bush appeared on the cover of Time magazine on April 12, 1944.
    • Another error. He appeared on the April 3rd cover. This is supported by both primary and secondary sources. Changed.[9]

Later life

[edit]
  • Bush died in Belmont, Massachusetts at age 84 from pneumonia after suffering a stroke during 1974.
  • His wife had died in 1969, but he was survived by his sons Richard, now a surgeon, and John, now President of Millipore Corporation
  • His papers are in the Library of Congress.
    • This is a bit confusing because his papers are held by MIT, Carnegie, NARA, and the LOC. Due to this fact, it should read, "The Vannevar Bush papers are located in several places, with the majority of the collection held at the Library of Congress. Additional papers are held by the MIT Institute Archives and Special Collections, the Carnegie Institution, and the National Archives and Record Administration."[10][11]
  • From 1947 to 1962, Bush was on the board of directors...from 1956 to 1972, and was a regent of the Smithsonian Institution from 1943 to 1955.
    • The third paragraph is the result of converting a list to prose. There are times to use a list and times to use prose, and this appears to be a case where a list would benefit the reader in an appendix at the end. Reading this in prose is quite boring and uninformative without knowing his accomplishments in each position. My opinion, anyway.
  • This is really three different sections, however nascent: later life, death, and legacy. I would recommend focusing on expanding his death and legacy in the future.

Publications

[edit]
  • Should Principles of Electrical Engineering note that it was written with William H. Timbie?
  • Are you going for selected publications here or are you trying to build a bibliography? I only ask because you have eight entries, while I count 15 major entries, four of which are with other authors. I'll list them here if you want to do something with them or not. Perhaps you have a reason for choosing the eight. In any case, here are the ones you don't have. Feel free to use them, either in whole or in part, or ignore them. More articles listed here:
    • 1916, Oscillating-Current Circuits
    • 1922, A Simple Harmonic Analyser (co-authored with Frederick S. Dellenbaugh, Jr.)
    • 1923, Transmission Line Transients
    • 1925, Power Transmission Transients (co-authored with R.D. Booth)
    • 1951, Principles of Electrical Engineering (co-authored with William H. Timbie)
    • 1954, Gano Sillick Dunn, 1870-1953
    • 1959, The Gentleman of Culture
    • 1965, Comfort Avery Adams
  • It wasn't my intention to include all of his papers, because these would be too long. So I decided just to list the books. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  • Consistency in reference formatting is helpful, but not required for GA. For example, footnote 10 lists the author's name first last, while 35 lists it last first.
  • Is there a reason to list both the ISBN and the OCLC, instead of one or the other? Just wondering.
    • The ISBN is part of the publication information; but the OCLC helps a redaer find a copy of the book in a nearby library. So I am in the habit of always including both. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand, but that explanation is precisely why I was confused. On my end, when I click on the ISBN, I'm brought to Special:BookSources which includes both the ISBN and the OCLC. However, I like your system better, because it saves you the extra click. Viriditas (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation four relies on a timeline published by the CS dept. at Brown U. While I'm sure they maintain the highest standards of accuracy, my experience tells me we should double-check with our published print sources. I'm not saying you have to do this, but I'm personally wary of relying on such sites.
  • If you let me know what additional, relevant critical material about Bush which might be necessary for inclusion at the featured article level, I will attempt to locate it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already did when I mentioned Jonathan Moreno in the checklist. He discusses the subject of bioethics in relation to Bush's oversight of human medical experiments ("the most astonishing example of the inconsistency in applying sound policy took place in the largest set of medical studies for which Bush and Richards were largely responsible"). There's also "Vannevar Bush and the Myth of Creation" in the book Science, Money, and Politics by Daniel S. Greenberg. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why have you cited two different versions of As We May Think? One is cited in The Atlantic (July) and the second in Life (September). Am I missing something?
[edit]
  • The first two links to "Internet Pioneers" and "Living Internet" surprised me, as I wasn't expecting links to personal websites to lead the section. On the other hand, I was expecting a link to the Vannevar Bush papers, 1901-1974 at the Library of Congress, and a link to the extensive photography collection at the MIT Museum. This collection contains numerous photographs of differential analysers which could be linked in external links or in the body using the {{external media}} template. There are also many other free images of differential analysers available on Commons for use in the early life section.

Checklist

[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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    cleanup/add external links?
    Layout looks great. Nice job
    Minor concerns about the use of British English in an article about an American with strong national ties to his country, but nothing that would impact the review
    Lead could be tighter and punchier, with less emphasis on dates and more of an effort imparting concepts and ideas, but this is a style issue and is unlikely to impact this review
    Avoid alliteration in the WWII section
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Verification requested for fourth paragraph of Memex section
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The article meets the broad criterion
    I am presently checking to see if there is unnecessary detail
    Both the NDRC and OSRD sections veer off into what might be perceived as unnecessary detail for this biography, but not so much that I find it problematic. However, I can see another reviewer asking, "Should you merge any of this into the NDRC and OSRD articles instead of Bush's biography?" For example, if you don't tell the reader why this material is important in relation to Bush, the reader will wonder why it's even there. You probably know why it is important, but please remember to explain it.
    The proximity fuze section goes a bit beyond Bush's biography. Anything extraneous probably doesn't belong.
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    The article is neutral. However, one could argue that it does not represent controversial viewpoints. Looking through the literature, I have failed to find these viewpoints represented in the preponderance of biographical sources about Bush as the subject. Authors like Jonathan D. Moreno have covered additional, relevant critical material about Bush which might be necessary for inclusion at the featured article level. But, based on its lack of biographical coverage, I do not see it as necessary for this review. A good article "does not require comprehensive coverage...nor any coverage of minor aspects."
  2. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    The article is stable
  3. 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):
    Add image of differential analyser and/or link to MIT collection
    Good job adding images
  4. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I've left extensive notes above indicating areas for improvement. As it stands, the current version of the article meets or exceeds the GA criteria. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vannevar_Bush/GA1&oldid=497201769"