Talk:James L. Buie

This review is transcluded from Talk:James L. Buie/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 20:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Removed a hard-coded image size

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Okay at GA level. At FAC you would need to know what his middle initial stood for.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Made some changes; revert anything you don't like. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus to delist. Article satisfies the GA criteria; many objections seem to fall foul of WP:WGN ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Reference 1 which is in multiple sections is classified as a generally unreliable source but it is ultimately sourced to the IEEE which is also used as the basis for Lee (reference 16) and some other references. Some of the issues may be solved by going back to a WP:RS at the IEEE. See comment below.
2. Lede:
   1. Used going into 21st century would need reference later in page.
3. Early life:
   1. receiving a BSEE in 1950 - Neither degree or year supported by reference #3
   2. Text says PSI in 1951, reference #3 says 1954. I suspect that reference #3 is suspect.
   3. BSEE and year comes from unreliable source #1
4. Mid life (probably more issues but stopped after these):
   1. Headed LSI is referenced to #1 which just said that he helped establish it
   2. Close paraphrase: Wikipedia patents in integrated circuit microelectronics were dielectrically isolated integrated circuits, single integrated circuit parallel multipliers, single integrated circuit analog signal to digital converters, and triple diffused bipolar integrated circuit devices., source (ref #1) His other innovations in microelectronics included dielectrically isolated ICs, single-chip parallel multipliers, single-chip analog-to-digital converters, and triple-diffused bipolar devices.

      It's a quote and it has quotation marks. Paraphrasing this technical jargon/descriptors is almost impossible. 19:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

   3. In line above article says patents which is not supported by reference.

      There is a reference for patents. Look again.

   4. Close paraphrase: Article His TTL circuitry became the dominant integrated circuit technology in the 1970s and early 1980s, source Buie developed and patented TTL circuitry, which became the dominant IC technology in the 1970s and early 1980s

      Copy edited to restructure and rephrase. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5. Later life and death:
   1. Reference does not support where he is buried which I suspect is from FindAGrave which is not a RS.

      There is a newspaper reference for Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery, and Find A Grave is highly specific, has a picture of the headstone, and is corroborative. It notes that the original memorial was created by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   2. Reference #18 is a letter to the editor by his wife and marginal from a WP:RS point of view.
6. In personal life:
   1. Reference 5 does not mention election to IEEE Election to IEEE now supported.
   2. Used going into 21st century drawing a long bow and dates to 1988 reference, #5.

      Eliminated the language, since it isn't in the source. It is true, but it's gone now. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   3. Buie's integrated circuit chip technology was used in various electronics of space satellites and computers into the 1990s not supported by reference, #18.
   4. Reference #18 is a letter to the editor by his wife and marginal from a WP:RS point of view for some of the items.

      It's supported by the references I put in. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the issues raised are fixable but I am not sure if all of them are without significant effort.

Note: This is a Doug Coldwell article. Gusfriend (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also the information He went to the local public schools and graduated from Hollywood High School. He then attended the Los Angeles City College and received an associate's degree. in the Early Life section is not supported by the reference (i.e. #1) and it is unclear where the information comes from. Gusfriend (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief comment: The "Computer Pioneers" link (reference 1) looks reliable to me, and a mistake of the reliability classifier. It is an online and updated edition of a published (both editions) book by a major academic society. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment and I would tend to agree. Gusfriend (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's another usable-looking source in "James L. Buie". Obituaries. Annals of the History of Computing. 11 (1): 49. 1989.

I was able to replace the source for the fact that he was an IEEE Fellow but not the year of his election. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Put in sources for his election. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@7&6=thirteen: Really? I see a letter to the editor from his widow asking for support on a ballot measure [1]. Where in that clip does it say anything about the 1973 date for his election as an IEEE Fellow? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here. "James L. Buie, 68; Scientist, Inventor". Los Angeles Times. L.A. TIMES ARCHIVES. September 28, 1988. Buie, who retired in 1983, was a graduate of USC. He was elected a fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in 1973. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 05:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, unlike your previous attempt at sourcing this claim, this one is valid. Was there a reason you made another copy of the reference instead of re-using the one we already had? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the quote Buie, who retired in 1983, was a graduate of USC. He was elected a fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in 1973. is only in this version but not in this version of the same article. I suspect that the difference is due to the different editions of the paper and that looks to be the only difference between them. Gusfriend (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had found the quote, which answered your query. I assumed that they were the same article (didn't want to clutter our article), and so I did not put in the new one. I should have. My bad. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi David Eppstein, Gusfriend, where do you all now stand on this GAR, considering the fixes that have been implemented? Is there a consensus to keep or delist? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• And @7&6=thirteen: as well. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2023 (TC)

Keep. There was nothing to reassess and no valid reason to engage in the exercise. Grudges don't count.

Good articles do not mean "perfect" articles. That is only an aspirational goal. This was a misguided effort, even if we WP:AGF.

The better approach, IMO, is to not get them demoted from WP:GA, but improve them promoted to WP:FA. That would be a worthwhile and highly praiseworthy accomplishment. Everybody would benefit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing the reassessment of Coldwell's GAs as a "grudge" is a mistake and an exercise in assuming bad faith. Coldwell had a well-established pattern of copying text from sources old and new, of cobbling together any random junk he could find vaguely related to the topic into an unstructured mess and calling it an article, and of bludgeoning reviewers in nomination after nomination until he found one who was either superficial-enough as a reviewer or tired-enough of the bludgeoning to pass it as a Good Article. In the best case, the reviewer did all the work of bringing the article up to GA standards and the result was really a Good Article, but the other cases resulted in a lot of articles labeled as Good Articles that were not in fact good and did not adequately meet the standards. We need to clean out this mess and this assessment is a valid part of that cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@7&6=thirteen could you please redact the implication that this GAR was created as part of a grudge or report me to ANI?

I also wanted to say that the first part of improving any article is identifying issues with the article and, if you do not have the bandwidth to fix them yourself, to bring them to the attention of the community. Gusfriend (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes and added templates such as citation needed and until when at places as appropriate to indicate my remaining concerns. I am not going to !vote about listing or delisting due to avoid any perception of a COI. Gusfriend (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article's claim in the lead that "The integrated circuit industry came into existence as a result" of Buie's work is far overstated. The integrated circuit industry was well underway in the late 1950s with the work of Kilby and Noyce. Buie's invention of TTL is very important, and our integrated circuit article writes that "TTL became the dominant integrated circuit technology during the 1970s to early 1980s.", I think accurately. But it did not create an industry. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your statements about the sources and the long term effects of Mr. Buie on the industry may be correct, or not. Reasonable minds may differ. That is a mattter of professioanl judgment.

WP:Verifiability should control, not WP:Truth.

Wikipedia is not a Zero sum game. WP:Drop the stick. WP:Dead horse. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Article improvement should be our guiding light, not retribution or recimination. Why continue to pick on those article reviewers? Just askin ...

I am suggesting a better way, in which everybody comes out a winner. Particularly our readers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you're doubling down on your violations of WP:AGF, I take it?

Everyone comes out a winner when good content is recognized as good content and distinguished from non-good content. There is an abundance of targets for articles in need of improvement. If this article requires significant additional effort to reach the good article status it has long been claimed to have, or to reach the featured article status that you think it should have, you are welcome to put in that effort. You are not welcome to demand that other editors drop whatever other priorities for article improvement they may have in order to fix up this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No.

Speaking of doubling down. Look in the mirror and what you just wrote.

I was trying to fix the problem, not fix the blame.

You are free to edit as you like within policy. You can lead a horse to water ... You can accept a good faith suggestion, or reject it. But you cannot impugn my motives; that is neither welcome, civil nor needed here.

You chose to disregard my statements about the content about the article. That too is your privilege. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is words like "grudge", "retribution", and "recrimination", that impugn motives. Those words are yours. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No point in pointing fingers. Not constructive. I'm done here. Move along. Happy editing and Happy New Year! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I rather get the feeling I've thrown a cat into a massive flock of pigeons. Having had a look at the sources (keeping in mind who wrote it) I am fairly satisfied with the article. As this GAR has been open for a month, I am closing it with no consensus to delist. I would however remind 7&6 that many of Doug's articles will probably come to GAR in the future, considering their low quality, and questioning the validity of the process every time that happens is probably not the best idea. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]