Content deleted Content added
Fixing this up |
|||
Line 70:
:I think the reasons that led the article from losing FA status (which it probably should never have had in the first place) are still reasons not to give the article GA status. I know most people don't read german but if you look at the german page you can still see a much more elaborate structure, pictures and so on. The current article fails the GA criteria in a number of ways: slightly narrow focus, certainly less than "compelling prose", not enough references and so on. As someone who works in the field, there are also a number of things in the article that make me cringe like "The most important complete set is NP-complete." Well, [[so fix it]] I guess... but in the meantime it's way too early to give the article GA status.
[[Category:Former good article nominees|{{PAGENAME}}]] [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]] 03:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
== Fixing this up ==
I am working on re-writing at least parts of this article. I understand computational complexity theory well, though I am by far not an expert on it, so my knowledge of some specific areas are lacking. Feel free to help out, intervene or to give suggestions.--[[User:Konstable|Konst]].[[User talk:Konstable|able]] 09:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
| |||