Template:Did you know nominations/Rugg-Feldman benchmarks
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Rugg/Feldman benchmarks edit
- ALT0:... that Steve Wozniak's Apple II Integer BASIC trounced all comers in the first Rugg/Feldman benchmarks? Source: tables and discussion in June 1977 article
- ALT1:... that Steve Wozniak's Integer BASIC was so fast in the Rugg/Feldman benchmarks that Bill Gates complained? Source: tables and discussion in October 1977 article
- ALT2:... that Bill Gates implied people were stealing Microsoft BASIC for the Rugg/Feldman benchmarks? Source: tables and discussion in October 1977 article
- ALT3:... that Bill Gates suggested the Rugg/Feldman benchmarks proved the MOS 6502 was the fastest CPU of its era? Source: tables and discussion in October 1977 article
Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 11:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC).
Reviewed Hells Bells.
I think of the various hooks, ALT1 is the most "hooky" and likely the best? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: New and long enough, QPQ done. This is an interesting topic that is treated in a thorough manner. However, I have concerns about the sourcing of this article. Nearly all of the article is a summary of the four articles that originally proposed various versions of the benchmarks, which is sourced solely to those four articles. Most of the other sources (refs 13–19) are sources that use the benchmarks but do not discuss them in depth, and are solely used in the "Use" section. (It's also unclear what the source for the "Sample results" section is.)
- Now, for DYK the threshold to be met is WP:V and not WP:N. Still, the former says "Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." While the provided sources seem reliable in the sense of being trustworthy for providing accurate information, the use of primary sources is very excessive given that they're limited to a single section in an article of this length. I would like to see independent sources used more broadly in the article, preferably one(s) that explicitly outline the historical context of the benchmarks, before I can pass this article. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Antony-22: So it seems you agree that the sources are "reliable" and have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If I am reading your post correctly, your concern is about the "independent" part, is that correct? If so, I believe you are mis-applying the term. The goal of independent sources is to "protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses". Do you see anything of that sort here?
- What I really think you're saying it relies too heavily on primary sources. This tends to be more blurry and every editor has their own view on this. However, the guideline is very clear that primary sources are OK as long as there "careful thought and some extra knowledge on the part of Wikipedia's editors." Do you believe I have failed to perform due diligence in this regard?
- The reason for both of these guidelines is to protect the Wiki from being overrun by highly biased material. Do you believe this article about a benchmark that has not been used for 35 years is highly biased? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Maury Markowitz: I don't believe there's any self-promotion or malice of any kind here, and just to be clear I'm definitely not accusing you of anything unsavory. My concern is that I don't think that a paper by the original proposers of an idea can be considered independent, and I have trouble concluding that an article based almost entirely on such sources is within policy. Usually I just comment on overuse of first-party sources and let it slide, but this is more excessive than other cases I've seen. So I'm not looking for a significant rewrite, just some improvement. Ideally it would be nice if there were, say, a citation to a review on the history of benchmarks that discusses this benchmark in context. (In any case, missing citations in the "Programs" and "Sample results" section still need to be addressed.) Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Maury Markowitz and Anthony-22: Is this nomination still ongoing? It has been more than a month since the last comment here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Antony-22: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5 and Maury Markowitz: I'm awaiting a response to my most recent comment. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
My response is that I believe this is a misapplication of NOTE. That is my opinion, Antony-22's is different. I am not sure how to proceed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5 and Maury Markowitz: My comments are based not on WP:N, which is explicitly not part of the DYK criteria, but on WP:V and WP:NOR. This article is almost completely a summary of a few primary research articles, which is not within policy for scientific articles. I was hoping simply for modest improvements to the article to introduce more text based on independent, secondary sources. However, I realize that this is a borderline case given the low bar of the DYK criteria, and if someone else wishes to approve it, I will not object. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 13:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I find, to my amazement, that this nom is still open. Can we please finish this one? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Considering Antony-22 is the one with the objections here and not me, you'll need to discuss with him what needs to be done here and see if a compromise can be reached. Or if necessary, perhaps a second opinion from another uninvolved editor here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I've posted a request for a second opinion at WT:DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Article meets qualifications for DYK (new enough, long enough, no concerning pings on Earwigs, hooks are neutral and short enough for DYK). WP:DYKR offers no specific guidance around articles sourced entirely using primary sources; the most analogous guidance is around articles sourced substantially/entirely with offline, foreign-language, or paywalled sources, in which case one must "verify the basic facts, or at the very least, the existence of the article subject," which the primary sources do. You may wish to make it clearer that the citation in the paragraph under "Sample results" is also citing the table, but I'm otherwise comfortable with promoting this. Morgan695 (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)- Also adding that any hook can be chosen, but I think ALT1 is the most interesting to a general audience. Morgan695 (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- I've posted a request for a second opinion at WT:DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Considering Antony-22 is the one with the objections here and not me, you'll need to discuss with him what needs to be done here and see if a compromise can be reached. Or if necessary, perhaps a second opinion from another uninvolved editor here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
