Talk:BELLMAC-8

Did you know nomination

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: rejected by Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

BELLMAC-8 die

• ... that the BELLMAC-8 microprocessor, AT&T's first, was designed to run the C programming language and had a C-like assembly language? Source: Rovegno 1978, p. 2255
  • Reviewed:

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 18:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/BELLMAC-8; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Article is new enough, long enough, adequately sourced, and a QPQ has been done. The hook is cited inline and I'm assuming good faith on the sourcing. However, I'm not convinced that the hook as currently written is going to be interesting to those who are unfamiliar with computer programming. It says that it was AT&T's first microprocessor, but considering virtually all modern microprocessors can run C now, it's not really a big deal without the additional context of the microprocessor dating to 1977. I do think there might be some more potential in how the processor's assembly language was "deliberately written" to resemble C, but as currently written, the hook seems too specialist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: a QPQ has been done...? I don't see it. BorgQueen (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Must have been a slip of the keyboard. @Maury Markowitz: This needs a QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

QPOQ: Brennley Brown Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: Thank you for the QPQ, but the hook issue still needs to be addressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• ALT1: ... that the BELLMAC-8 microprocessor, AT&T's first, used an assembly language that was patterned to look like the C programming language? Source: Rovegno 1978, p. 2255

Gonna have to think about this as I'm not really sure if it addresses my original concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: This nom is growing rather mouldy after 40 days. You seem to be expressing a general malaise as opposed to any specific red flags, and I already re-worded it once to meet your suggestion. Can you offer further improvement? Or can we get this moving along? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It's more of I have mixed feelings if the hook meets the "intriguing to a non-specialist audience" criterion. As someone familiar with tech/computing/programming, it's interesting to me. However, I'm not really sure if a less techy person has the same opinion. Perhaps an opinion from another techie like Theleekycauldron might also be a good idea here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Given the lack of a suitable hook I don't see a path forward for the nomination anymore. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I posted this on 5 May and today is 27 June, and I only saw this by accident, I was not pinged. I asked how to improve the hook to your satisfaction, and re-wrote it based on your comment, but for reasons unexplained this was apparently not good enough. I asked for further guidance, received none, and instead find that you have voted to close.

I am happy to edit both the article and the hook to your satisfaction, but to do so I'll need something more specific to work with. If this is too much ask I understand, this is a volunteer position after all, but then it would seem the proper course of action would be to re-list to get some fresh ideas, not give up entirely. Voting to close based solely on "mixed feelings" with no strong attempt to address the issue seems beyond the pale. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I took a look at the article, and honestly, if anything came to mind that would have been less specialist/technical, I would have proposed a new hook myself. But the article is very technical, meaning finding a hook that would appeal even to non-techies would be difficult if not impossible. It may be for the best to just let this nomination be closed and spend energy on more viable articles. As for the hooks above, I understand them well and I think as someone who can understand it, I find it interesting; I just don't think that people unfamiliar with programming languages and related knowledge would appreciate it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

At this point I'll simply ask for a re-list and will add the following possibilities for the next reviewer, and am happy to suggest more if they desire: Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• ALT2 ... that AT&T's first microprocessor, the BELLMAC-8, was used only in their own products like the 4ESS telephone switch? Source: Rovegno 1978, p. 2255
• ALT3 ... that AT&T's first microprocessor, the BELLMAC-8, led to a series of designs ending with the failed AT&T Hobbit 15 years later? Gassée

New reviewer requested to check the new ALT hooks and the article as well. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll let another reviewer check this per the nominator's request, but honestly I don't think ALT2 and ALT3 are much better. ALT3 is especially specialist and ALT2 doesn't stand out IMO. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

With respect to the previous reviewer, I find ALT3 interesting. @Maury Markowitz: before I approve, could you point out the specific passage and citation relevant to ALT3 in the article? ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I clarified the section and added references pointing to the C Machine heritage of all of these systems. You'll see the new cites, along with Byte's additional bit. It's all in the last section. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a qualified no. While the hook is accurate and found in sources, it relies on multiple sources that don't directly touch on the article's subject and might instead be understood as original research. Additionally, while the Jean-Louis Gassée article is probably acceptable as an RS despite being a blog post (his personal qualifications mitigating things), I don't think it's enough to pin a hook to. Sorry. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: The first AT&T paper directly states the design was part of the C Machine, the second says the same for CRISP and Hobbit. Byte reiterates for Hobbit. Can you be more specific? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Or, how about this:

• ALT4 ... that AT&T's BELLMAC-8, was the first in a line of C-language microprocessors that ended with AT&T Hobbit 15 years later? AT&T and Byte

... I don't think there's any possible OR there, the refs state this explicitly for the two designs mentioned. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Releasing for another reviewer to consider. I have looked at the sources and they seem a few steps away from appropriately addressing the specific article subject, but the nominator seems committed to this process. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the sourcing issues, ALT4 does not address the original concern that the hook fact itself is too specialist and does not appeal to people without a background in computing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)