Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ackermann function/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]

  • 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.

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]