Talk:Scheme (programming language)/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:21, 12:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:21, 12:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

As I've extensively rewritten this article over the past week or so I would like a reassessment of its "Good Article" status. --TS 01:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely to take at least day or so, as Lisp (and its variants) is topic of which I have no practical experience. Pyrotec (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I don't understand Lisp programming so I will not be carrying about any technical checks on the examples, but if they don't make sense to me I will ask questions here, and depending on what responses are received will influence whether GA-status is awarded or not. I also tend to leave the WP:Lead until last. It is intended to do two things: introduce the article and summarise the main points in the article. Whilst I need to make use of the "introductory" aspects of the Lead, it is often better to review it's "summarising function" at the end of the review.

Origins -

This is a short single paragraph section with a {{Main}} link to History of the Scheme programming language.

Now History of the Scheme programming language discusses Lisp, Algol and the Lambda Papers. The Lead mentions Lisp and the Lambda Papers; and Algol and the Lambda Papers get mentioned again in Distinguishing features, so why does this section not mention Algol (and posibly the Lambda Papers) as part of the origins of Scheme (programming language)?

Distinguishing features -

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]