Talk:Quality control and genetic algorithms

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Systems: Operations research Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Operations research.

Introduction

I reinstated the introduction, which isn't redundant as a anom user suggested. Every wikipedia article has to have such an introduction. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Systems Assessment

I removed the changes made in the WikiProject Systems Assessment by an anom user. This assessment is made by the WikiProjects, and is an comparisent with 2000 other articles. I guess the anom user doesn't understand the classification scheme. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

There seems to me a conflict of interest here. It seems the main contributon User:Aristides Hatjimihail has made three references towards his own work by Hatjimihail AT. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two references have been removed. The remaining reference documents the first application of the GAs in the field of QCAristides Hatjimihail (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just noticed. However I think this is not the way to solve this. I think I have been incomplete in my comment here. I don't care that much about the conflict of interest. More important is, that the article have no independent third party sources to verify the importance of this combined subject. Could you look into this some more? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Clinical Chemistry, a peer reviewed journal with impact factor of 4.803, is a reliable, independent third party source. Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what I meant, see Wikipedia:Notability and WP:RELIABLE. Combined articles like this, as far a I know, are hardly acceptable unless the combined term is notable enough. Now it seems to me the current text could as well be merged in one of those two separate articles or in both. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Marcel Douwe Dekker is a Wikipedia editor and the article does not meet the Wikipedia Notability and Reliability criteria I ask him to remove it and to keep it only if it meets these criteria. Otherwise, I ask him to refer this matter to an editor.Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Wikipedia senior editor, see my userpage User:Mdd, but this doesn't mean I can remove articles, whenever I feel like it. I will propose to merge this article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]