Contents • • • • • • • To Do [ ] IMHO needs more work at least on,,,, and significance of DEC machines after the PDP-6. Also somewhere in Wikipedia, a screen shot from Spacewar! Running on the Computer History Museum's restored PDP-1 would be great (the phosphors give the ships tails). -- 15:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC) • Spacewar!
Dec 1, 2017 - /page/am-kotok-sigish-surot/.
Photo added 21 July 04:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC) • W3C at Stata Center added 26 December 07:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Alan B. Kotok [ ] Someday this entry should mention and link to a separate page for Alan B. - 22:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC) • Mention added at the top. -- 11:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Sketchpad [ ] In the Computer History Museum video celebrating the PDP-1 restoration, there is a mention of T-Square possibly being the 'first electronic drafting' program, and that it used the Spacewar!
Apparently first ran in February 1962. In his MIT PhD thesis published in 1963, Ivan Sutherland explains he completed an early version of that could draw parallel and perpendicular lines in November 1961. Sutherland goes on to say, 'Somewhat before my first effort was working, Welden Clark of Bolt, Beranek and Newman.'
Showed him a 'similar program' running on a PDP-1. It would be interesting to know what program that was. -- 10:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC) • Paragraph saying relationship is 'unknown' copied to new stub.
Clark's publications might or might not hold an answer. -- 22:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Good luck [ ] I've made a few tweaks, but that is all I plan to do for now. If you need a copyeditor before the next GAN, feel free to let me know (I'm not a very good one, but I understand the context and am at least another pair of eyes). 21:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Geometry guy! If you are serious about offering to copyedit, you lifted my spirits. One source left in question:. Do you think that the direct quote there could be allowed at GAN (and FAC)?
It explains several years of the subject's life and could be a primary source. Samizdat.com is probably as old as Google but some people might call it self-published. - () 05:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC) I've done a bit more and a bit less than copyedit. More because I've removed some content that seemed to me to be tangential. Less because I think more copyediting work may be needed.
However, a priority right now should be. The current lead is very weak and needs to be expanded to 2-3 paragraphs which touch on the main points of the article. I don't mind giving it a shot this weekend, but I need to be sure I have understood the main points, hence my copyediting++. As for the source, I'm not sure: in my view the reliability of a source should be judged in the context of the material that is being sourced.
In this case it is pretty factual, so some leniency is OK. You can ask at the for other opinions. 23:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC) The lead is better now. 
If you think it is ready say go. - () 03:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC) I would suggest renomination now.
There may still be GA concerns, but given your willingness to fix issues raised, and the closeness of the article to the GA standard, there's a good chance that you'll get a review with a positive outcome. 23:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC) GA Review [ ] This review is from. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. () 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC) review (see for criteria) • It is reasonably well written. A (prose): b (): • The lead could use some expansion. All three paragraphs are fairly short, and the lead doesn't feel like it gives a solid overview of the article.
• Is it better now? • It is still really short. To be a true paragraph, one needs to have at least three sentences. Now that I have combined the last two paragraphs you have the first paragraph with two sentences, the second with three sentences and the third with two sentences. Do you see what I'm getting at? These are all really short paragraphs. Make sure that you're summarizing the entire article - for example, at the moment, I don't see anything in the lead that summarizes the Personal life section.
• Added a bit of Personal life. Yes, I understand what you're saying. Perhaps you are used to longer articles.
Let me know if you need more. • • In the Software section, why is 'true hackers' in italics? • • In the second paragraph of the Digital section, it says 'Digital photographed Bell and Kotok at the PDP-6.' Why is this a notable enough fact to include in the article? • Good question. We don't know for sure what is pictured, but it was likely the first around-the-world network. I can move it to external links?