Wikipedia:Featured article review/Algorithm

Algorithm

I feel that this article as it stands should not be a featured articles. It lacks references, is incoherently written and the history section is almost completely missing. —Ruud 23:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - not well-written (incoherent structure, needless repetition of basic facts); not comprehensive (history section is a stub); completely unreferenced; appears to be factually inaccurate in places (although I can't verify that, since there are no references); lacks focus (several irrelevant digressions into programming topics). --Allan McInnes (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have this issues been taken in the article talk page before nominating it for FARC? If not, remove/close this nomination. Joelito (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The todo-list has been there for a long time... these are not problems which are going to be fixed on short notice. —Ruud 01:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The to-do list does not mention any of the problems/issues you are concerned about. Joelito (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It does. —Ruud 01:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Algorith's to do
        Rewrite the history section
        
        Ancient algorithms (Babylonians, Euclid, Sieve)
        
        Formalization (Turing machines, Lambda calculus, Church-Turing thesis
      - Where does it say anything about references or writing cohesion? The only thing that it mentions is the history section. It must also be noted that the to-do was created on February 1, 2006. Joelito (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You said "any of the problems" (emphasis added). —Ruud 02:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I never said "any" on my original comment but that's not the point. Please remove the nomination and follow the procedure for FARC. Joelito (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Seriously though, in its current state this should not be a featured article and there's a snowball's chance in hell that is will be anytime soon, whether I express all of my concerns on the talk page or only one of them. —Ruud 03:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You may be correct but the procedure must be followed to give editors a chance to improve the article. Joelito (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. The pending task has been sitting there since February. There's been a section stub notice sitting in the article since February. Anyone editing this article more than casually would have to have been pretty blind not to notice these things. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]