Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
I once made this very mistake, and it invalidates one of the main theorems of a published article I once quoted. A good reason in my opinion to specify what are the arrows when writing a sequence or a diagram: they are usually what you think they are, but hey, let's check.
Or to put it in the form of the famous joke: a famous retiring algebraic topologist ends her retiring speech saying "Now that I am 65 and retiring, I want to spend my free time doing history". "And a good thing too", a historian in the room says "because now that I am 65 and retiring, I want to spend my free time doing algebraic topology".
To write the history of a subject, one should better know how to do good history beforehand. Precious few people master both the technical historical knowledge and the technical mathematical knowledge required to write good recent mathematical history. For this reason, many (but not all) books mentioned in answers might be excellent books, but I wouldn't characterize them as historical, in the sense that they wouldn't (and by far) pass the standard requirement for a scholarly publication in the field of history.
And the introduction states straight away that Deligne intends to publish a second article on the subject. The delay seems to be part of the never ending turmoil concerninh SGA 4,5 and 5.
Just a historical comment: the classification of maximal subgroups of GL(2) for any finite field (not only Z/pZ) is due to Dickson so precedes Serre's paper by a good 70 years.
@Emerton and Kevin Buzzard. Credit where credit its due: the fact that Serre's conjecture implies modularity of the H^3 of the Calabi-Yau is already in Serre's article for Manin (where the conjecture is formulated). This is theorem Théorème 6 unless I'm missing something.
