Template:Did you know nominations/Telescript (programming language)

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Just what the virus writers have been calling for

Telescript (programming language)

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Magic Cap's Telescript programming language's included the ability to send bits of its programs to other computers to run remotely in the cloud?

• Reviewed: I have about a half a dozen DYK reviews in the last week. (using Template:Did you know nominations/Forced seduction)

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self nominated at 18:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC).

• Nominated same day it was created, and of substantial length, satisfying date and length criteria. No close paraphrasing found. Please don't use fragments such as "not unlike" ( -> similar); I've changed these for you. For the statement "Surprisingly, Scully agreed to this.", there is no mention of "surprise" in the source, only "enthusiastic go-ahead", so this is POV. You have an incorrect citation for "...10% stakes held by Apple..."; you've cited Forbes, but I think it came from Wired. The link to Dan Winkler redirects to Colorado Rockies minor league players, which is the incorrect target. Please rephrase "Apple was at this time involved..." as it contains "at this time...at that time", which is awkward. The Hanttula ref doesn't seem to mention that Magic Cap is point and click, or that it was ignored by the press. Consider adding a link to Exception handling where the article discusses trapping success or failure messages. Last paragraph of "Underlying concepts" has no citations; per DYK rules, each paragraph must have at least one citation. In the syntax section, you refer to "The implementation of the Fruit..." despite giving an example of "Pie" (the ref uses "Fruit"). "whom" should refer to people, not objects; replace it by "which" or something else. "...needed to implement an online store..." probably doesn't need "online"; it could be a bricks and mortar store with an online agent, no? Citation 12 does not describe live as the standard startup method. For "...the agent will return to is place of origin...", do you mean its? For "Ownership also infers...", I think "infers" is incorrect here; do you mean "confers", or did you omit whatever is making the inference? I can't seem to verify anything in the paragraph "Sub-classes were known as flavors..."; it doesn't appear on page 20 of the ref (if I've missed it, could you indicate where on the page it occurs). I don't think page 3 of the guide states that .d files combine multiple .i files - it says defines and calls to nested includes; is that really the same thing? (A call could be to another file.) Please explicitly specify which QPQ review you are applying to this article review; don't just state you've done a whole bunch of 'em - reviewers shouldn't have to hunt for this info. Hook length is OK, but the info is split amongst various sentences in the article, none of which has a citation. (Hook facts must be cited in the article per DYK rules.) Mindmatrix 16:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Superb review @Mindmatrix! I'll try to get all these done tonight. Would you mind checking back tomorrow? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Mindmatrix 16:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I have them all except:

- flavours are described throughout the entire book, there's no point linking to a single page, the ref to page 20 is a general instance. - page 3 seems to be suggesting what I originally stated, perhaps I am confused by your statement?

I have also changed the hook to something directly quoted. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: most of the concerns raised by Mindmatrix were not related to this DYK specifically, just general improvements, the exception being the hook. These have been addressed, but this article is still lacking a DYK review. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been meaning to review your changes. I'll get to it soonish... Mindmatrix 14:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see any support for the claim "...and was largely ignored by the press" in this ref; could you quote the text from that source you believe to support this claim? I think you messed up a recent edit for the sentence "Apple had already...", as it reads oddly now (not necessary to fix for DYK, but it should still be fixed.) Regarding flavours, you cited page 20 for the paragraph "Sub-classes were known as flavors...", but this page makes no mention of it, which is why I made a note if it. (I can't seem to verify anything in that paragraph using the page you cited. I've found passing mention of mixins on page 26.) Regarding the last paragraph of the text, page 2 of the source states these are conventions, not requirements, and describes .d files differently from what you state, and page 3 gives an example of it. (Page 2 specifically contradicts what you wrote, stating that .d files are "...for direct inclusion in the corresponding .i file"; am I misreading it? That is, it says that .d are header files pulled in by multiple other files during compilation, such as myapp.t and myapp.i/myother.t in the example on page 3, using #include.) After more than an hour of reviewing the sources, I realized you may have mislabelled your citations; the term "flavor" is clearly mentioned in "Telescript Language Reference" (page 20 and 21) and supports your claim, not "Telescript Programming Guide" as you've cited it. Please substitute the correct citation, and be more attentive with your citations in the future, as I shouldn't have to spend so much time ferreting this out. You still need to specify which QPQ you are applying to this review. After these few minor changes are made, this will be good to go. Mindmatrix 01:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

For clarity, these are the issues culled from the above to resolve:

Fix "...and was largely ignored by the press" citation

Fix citation for "Sub-classes were known as flavors..." paragraph to "Telescript Programming Guide" instead of "Telescript Programming Guide"

Specify which QPQ you are applying to this review

That's it. Mindmatrix 01:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine, Forced seduction. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Good to go with recent changes and using Template:Did you know nominations/Forced seduction for QPQ review. Mindmatrix 14:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)