I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for TFA. I brought it to GA in 2020, and "employed" Iry-Hor as a
mentor. After offering some improvements, they unfortunately had to pull out due to a need to balance time spent on Wikipedia better. (see
here.) I'd appreciate some review and advice, especially on the mathematical front, as I think the article is lacking in that respect.
Thanks, WikiMacaroonsCinnamon?15:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)reply
STANDARD NOTE: for quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to
Template:FAC peer review sidebar (this has been done for you). And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards,
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
16:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Hi
WikiMacaroons, I'm sorry that no one has reviewed this article yet. I am hopeless at math-stuff, so consider this a non-expert review. I will assess this as if it was an FAC.
"(sometimes called the Machine Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine) or MENACE" put the second part in brackets.
" by artificial intelligence pioneer Donald Michie in 1961." Pioneer is on the
words to watch list. Can we replace it with a descriptor of his job title? (Engineer, designer, etc)
"Donald Michie teaching a group of students at Turing Institute" In the caption, can you identify which person is Michie? I think his wiki article has a better picture of him.
"It involves strategic placing to block the other player while simultaneously taking the win." This sentence confused me and I think needs to be expanded upon.
"When the computer begins and plays a random-playing opponent, it has the odds of the computer winning turn quickly in its favour." -> "The likelihood of the computer winning increases quickly when the computer makes the first move against a random-playing opponent." or something similar.
Thanks
WikiMacaroons thanks for making the edits above. Here are some more comments, specifically focusing on references:
The more sources you have, the more likely people will feel confident in your FAC. If you haven't already, check
WP:LIBRARY, archive.org, Google Books, Google Scholar and any databases available at your local library for more sources.
Ref 12: is this a book? An article? I am suspicious that there is no link, no ISBN and no author provided.
Ref 14: There's no author and no indication in the article that it is supplied by the University of Warwick. Is it possible to get better information, like if it was published in an academic journal?
Ref 15 is missing author name, and the link is not properly formatted.
I'm going to pause there, but please check the other references and ensure that the refs are consistently and properly formatted, and information (like author name, page number) are included? Lastly, check all of the sources and ensure that they are high-quality sources.
Z1720 (
talk)
03:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Hi
WikiMacaroons it has been over a month since you last edited this PR. Are you still working on this? If not, would you like to close it and reopen when you have more time? Thanks.
Z1720 (
talk)
21:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Z1720: I'm very sorry, I've been busy with off-wiki things. What a coincidence, then, that I finished all my business a couple of days ago, and I am now able to continue with this PR. Thank you for reminding me, I'll get back on it ASAP.
Comments by Femke
Alts should convey the information that people who don't see (well) miss from the image. It should typically not duplicate too much information from the caption, which is also read by screen-readers. For the last image, you may want to describe the trend of the line, and maybe the behaviour after the introduction of new variants.
The trend in changes of beads in the "2" boxes runs -> don't understand. A table should have a caption, per
MOS:DTAB
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for TFA. I brought it to GA in 2020, and "employed" Iry-Hor as a
mentor. After offering some improvements, they unfortunately had to pull out due to a need to balance time spent on Wikipedia better. (see
here.) I'd appreciate some review and advice, especially on the mathematical front, as I think the article is lacking in that respect.
Thanks, WikiMacaroonsCinnamon?15:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)reply
STANDARD NOTE: for quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to
Template:FAC peer review sidebar (this has been done for you). And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards,
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
16:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Hi
WikiMacaroons, I'm sorry that no one has reviewed this article yet. I am hopeless at math-stuff, so consider this a non-expert review. I will assess this as if it was an FAC.
"(sometimes called the Machine Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine) or MENACE" put the second part in brackets.
" by artificial intelligence pioneer Donald Michie in 1961." Pioneer is on the
words to watch list. Can we replace it with a descriptor of his job title? (Engineer, designer, etc)
"Donald Michie teaching a group of students at Turing Institute" In the caption, can you identify which person is Michie? I think his wiki article has a better picture of him.
"It involves strategic placing to block the other player while simultaneously taking the win." This sentence confused me and I think needs to be expanded upon.
"When the computer begins and plays a random-playing opponent, it has the odds of the computer winning turn quickly in its favour." -> "The likelihood of the computer winning increases quickly when the computer makes the first move against a random-playing opponent." or something similar.
Thanks
WikiMacaroons thanks for making the edits above. Here are some more comments, specifically focusing on references:
The more sources you have, the more likely people will feel confident in your FAC. If you haven't already, check
WP:LIBRARY, archive.org, Google Books, Google Scholar and any databases available at your local library for more sources.
Ref 12: is this a book? An article? I am suspicious that there is no link, no ISBN and no author provided.
Ref 14: There's no author and no indication in the article that it is supplied by the University of Warwick. Is it possible to get better information, like if it was published in an academic journal?
Ref 15 is missing author name, and the link is not properly formatted.
I'm going to pause there, but please check the other references and ensure that the refs are consistently and properly formatted, and information (like author name, page number) are included? Lastly, check all of the sources and ensure that they are high-quality sources.
Z1720 (
talk)
03:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Hi
WikiMacaroons it has been over a month since you last edited this PR. Are you still working on this? If not, would you like to close it and reopen when you have more time? Thanks.
Z1720 (
talk)
21:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Z1720: I'm very sorry, I've been busy with off-wiki things. What a coincidence, then, that I finished all my business a couple of days ago, and I am now able to continue with this PR. Thank you for reminding me, I'll get back on it ASAP.
Comments by Femke
Alts should convey the information that people who don't see (well) miss from the image. It should typically not duplicate too much information from the caption, which is also read by screen-readers. For the last image, you may want to describe the trend of the line, and maybe the behaviour after the introduction of new variants.
The trend in changes of beads in the "2" boxes runs -> don't understand. A table should have a caption, per
MOS:DTAB