Talk:Moore's law/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 18:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
• It contains copyright infringements -
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

• https://medium.com/predict/moores-law-is-alive-and-well-adc010ea7a63 - is this reliable? Medium is generally usergenerated.
• Both https://onecellonelightradio.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/three-dimensional-integration-of-semiconductors-2015.pdf and https://cartesianproduct.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/the-end-of-dennard-scaling/ are wordpress, so need investigating. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Prose

Lede

• Lede's are a maximum of 4 paragraphs.
• Generally a lede is a summary of that contained in the rest of the prose. As such, it shouldn't require citations. There's 31 citations in this lede - is anything from the lede in the text? I have made changes such that all material in the lead is now covered elsewhere. There are still citation refs in the lead but all of these are used elsewhere in the supporting material in the body. We can safely remove these if necessary. ~Kvng (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• MOSFET transistor counts - WP:SEAOFBLUE Removed MOSFET, covered in Transistor count. ~Kvng (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• compound annual growth rate (CAGR) - link the term, not the acronym. Done. ~Kvng (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• In the 2015 interview, Moore notes of the 1965 article: "And I just did a wild extrapolation saying it’s going to continue to double every year for the next 10 years."[7] - what 2015 interview? Is this really something for the lede? Moved to History section. ~Kvng (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• The doubling period is often misquoted as 18 months because of a prediction by Moore's colleague, Intel executive David House. In 1975, House noted that Moore's revised law of doubling transistor count every 2 years in turn implied that computer chip performance would roughly double every 18 months (with no increase in power consumption). - hardly a lede thing. Moved to History section. ~Kvng (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• [17][18][19][20] - WP:REFBOMB. I assume you mean WP:CITEKILL. All refs can be removed from lead if necessary. Do you think there is a WP:CITEKILL issue in the body? ~Kvng (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• In general, it is not logically sound to extrapolate from the historical growth rate into the indefinite future.^{[according to whom?]} Removed unnecessary statement. ~Kvng (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• lede needs a copyedit after shrinking. ~Kvng (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Lede has some issues with WP:NPOV. @Lee Vilenski: Can you elaborate on this criticism? ~Kvng (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I remember what I was getting at, I don't see it. Apologies. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Could you remove the citations in the lede if they are being covered? There is a bit of a CITEKILL issue, specifically "claimed to keep pace with Moore's law.[44][45][48][49][50][51]" - IMO 3 citations is a little much but ok, any more is ridiculous. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

General

• The scaling table to the right uses ~2020 - could we have a key? I know it means around this time, but it should be denoted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  I have moved the ~2020 entry into the Future section to help clarify this. There is some sensitivity expressed at Template talk:Semiconductor manufacturing processes about the width of this box so changing ~2020 to Expected 2020 or somesuch isn't necessarily uncontroversial. ~Kvng (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  I was just thinking of a key or tooltips, but that works similarly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• A number of duplicate links, such as FinFETs, integrated circuit, and MOSFET scaling - OL Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Done ~Kvng (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• MOSFET (metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistor) - perhaps put the acronym in the brackets. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  Here we're following the lead in the MOSFET article; the acronym is better recognized than the full name. ~Kvng (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year. Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years. - is this a quote? Doesn't seem cited. Perhaps put in a quote box, or at least use a quotemarks for this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  It's a quote from the paper discussed and referenced in the paragraph preceeding it. I have added another reference to this paper to clarify. ~Kvng (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Whilst bullet points in articles are fine, this has a short paragraph followed by a sentence after the points. Could we move the sentence into a different paragraph? P.S. this also happens in Major enabling factors. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  I have combined four short paragraphs in this section into two longer ones. ~Kvng (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• MOSFET (metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistor) - I don't think we need to redefine this again. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Part of WP:DUPLINK fixes from above. ~Kvng (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• The first two paras of Alternative materials research are unsourced. I think the info is gleemed from the bullets? But citing the info directly would be appreciated. (You could combine into one para too). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  The first paragraph is a summary of the section and is supported by the citations in the section. The second paragraph is a summary of the bulleted list and is supported by the citations in the list. ~Kvng (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• There is a [clarification needed] tag. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  I have reworded this per the source, added a link to Biological computing and removed the taq. ~Kvng (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps Most forecasters, including Gordon Moore,[147] expect Moore's law will end by around 2025.[148][149][150] could go at the end of that section, as it's last chronologically. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Moved ~Kvng (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• There's an uncited para in Consequences. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Added ref. ~Kvng (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Other formulations and similar observations - has a series of enbolded text - is this neccesary? Even if it is, there's some WP:BOLDAVOID issues with linking the items. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  I could reformat this with subsections or WP:DLIST. I don't think adding subsections would be an improvement. WP:DLIST would visually produce substantially the same result and I can do that if deemed necessary. ~Kvng (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• Automated note - If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definitely not mandatory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}
  • Hi Kvng - could I get you to address the issues raised in the lede before I tackle the rest of the article? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    @Lee Vilenski: Done. I have one open question about NPOV (above). ~Kvng (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

    • • Sorry about that! (and the delay). See additional questions - I'll place on hold. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
        • Hi Kvng, anything to the further questions? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
          • I'm working my way through your comments as my time allows. I take WP:NODEADLINES seriously in my Wikipedia work. If there is a deadline for getting this done, I will likely dissapoint. ~Kvng (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

- I didn't think NODEADLINE applies at GAN? Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions talks about it being usually 7 days. I'm quite happy to keep this open longer, but I'd like to know it was being worked on and not gone stale. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes probably not and that's probably why I don't do much GA stuff. I'll touch this page whenever I work on your flagged GA issues. If you don't see satisfactory progress, I won't be offended if you shut this down. ~Kvng (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, I beleive I've addressed all your General concerns now. Please review my comments above and let me know if there is any further work needed to wrap this up. ~Kvng (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Lee Vilenski thanks for approving GA for this article. Do you know how to sort out the GA templates at Talk:Moore's law? I think I could fix it up manually but the GA process seems to be bot driven and so maybe there's a better way than manual. ~Kvng (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Legobot usually fixes the "article milestones" bit after a couple days. If not, drop me a ping and I'll do it manually. You may have gotten a "failed" message on your talk (I didn't check), it's a known bug. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Legobot last visited three days ago. This may need some intervention. ~Kvng (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: this did not sort itself out so I made some manual adjustments. Feel free to touch it up if necessary. ~Kvng (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)