Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ackermann function/archive2

Ackermann function[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Messages left at User talk:Pakaran, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science. Sandy 15:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Became a featured article way back in March 2004, reviewd in Oct 04 Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Ackermann function. I don't think it meets current FA standards. In particular the introduction does not establish context in simple terms which the layman could understand. --Salix alba (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subsection Ackermann_function#Ackermann_numbers could use some help from someone good at LaTEX towards the end where it shows the fourth ackerman number. Currently it only uses HTML to express this. Kaimiddleton 20:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that this is not at all up to FA standards. There is the issue of readability by the layman of course, although for this kind of article I think it's unwise to insist too much on that goal. Still, I don't think anyone can seriously say that the prose is compelling or brilliant (even with the right amount of background). I'm also worried about the comprehensiveness of the article. A number of things could be expanded on. For instance it would not be evident to most that we should care that there are non-primitive-recursive functions and there should be some better intuitive notion of primitive recursive (unfortunately, the article about it is not really helping). Also, I may be wrong but what's Gödel got to do with any of this? It looks like gratuitous name-dropping. Pascal.Tesson 06:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is problematic. Short and complicated.
In the lead again computability theory directs to a disambiguation page. This is inacceptable for the lead of a FA.
And I see very very few inline citations.

I think all three issues can be worked.--Yannismarou 14:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the extended discussion of On The Infinite and the discussion of the Busy Beaver function are not relevant to this article.

The link to computability theory is shorthand for linking to both Recursion theory and Computability theory (computer science). Replacing it with a link to either one alone would be incorrect. Perhaps someday there will be a single correct article to link to, but that day is not here yet. CMummert 17:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I just dabbed it. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I will say that Computability theory (computer science) seems much more complete than Recursion theory, and they both have links to the other. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are LEAD (2a), citations (1c), and accessibility and quality of writing (1a). Marskell 10:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove no activity since listing, problems remain. --Peta 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Not even up to GA standards, and no real work has been done for a while.--Dark Kubrick 19:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Fails criterion 1. c. LuciferMorgan 08:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]