Template:Did you know nominations/J. J. Stiffler
Appearance
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
J. J. Stiffler
- ... that J. J. Stiffler's "unparalleled ... landmark" Theory of Synchronous Communications (1971) sprang from NASA's need for power-efficient synchronization of data transmission for its space probes? Posner: "The deep-space program and its need for power-efficient sync of carrier, subcarrier, symbol, bit, word, and frame have led to a whole book on synchronization by ... Stiffler." SCHOLTZ: "unparalleled in its comprehensive treatment of the synchronization problems of time-discrete communications. Undoubtedly Stiffler’s book is a landmark in the theoretical development of synchronous communications"
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/My Belgian Rose
- Comment: I'd like this to appear in whatever slot covers about 1500-1700 UTC on September 28, 2019
Created by EEng (talk). Self-nominated at 06:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC).
- Review by Maile
- QPQ
- QPQ provided, and not used on any other nomination
- Eligibility
- Article created September 8, 2019
2961 characters (429 words) "readable prose size"3178 characters after a few edit tweaks by nominator
- Sourcing
Need to fix Citation 4 that says Hmag; error message says it's not pointing to anythingcitation error fixed — Maile (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Otherwise, verifiable sourcing used
- Hook
- Hooks sourcing verified
- Original hook is 195 characters
- Images
- No images used on nomination
- Copyvio check
- Spot check shows no issues of concern
- Earwig's tool says 0.0% chance of a violation.
@EEng: You need to fix Citation 4, but everything else looks good. — Maile (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oops, how sloppy of me, fixed. I’ll be adding some images, so I’ll ping you back when I’m 100% done. Thanks to David Eppstein for enhancing the Research section. EEng 03:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- All right, Maile66, we're ready for our tick. EEng 23:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Issues fixed, and this nomination is good to go. Note special date request above for "whatever slot covers about 1500-1700 UTC on September 28, 2019" — Maile (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- EEng, what is the special occasion that is being marked by having the date request for September 28 between 1500 to 1700 UTC? Special occasion requests should come with a reason for why the occasion is special and should be commemorated by having the hook appear at a specific date (and time). I didn't see anything here or in the article regarding that date. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, should have explained: a memorial celebration is being held on that date, so I thought this would be a nice touch. I see now that the guidelines have recently changed to have more of a "specialness of the date" requirement, but since the date requested is this Saturday, and the problem as I understand it was mostly that too many requests for dates too far in future were clogging up the works, I'm hoping this can be run as requested. Also, if not I'll be sad. EEng 22:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Restoring tick. A memorial celebration is certainly a special occasion, it's just that there was no indication of what was special about that date in particular. Thanks for the quick response. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, should have explained: a memorial celebration is being held on that date, so I thought this would be a nice touch. I see now that the guidelines have recently changed to have more of a "specialness of the date" requirement, but since the date requested is this Saturday, and the problem as I understand it was mostly that too many requests for dates too far in future were clogging up the works, I'm hoping this can be run as requested. Also, if not I'll be sad. EEng 22:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)