Content deleted Content added
GAnominee |
removed GA nomination |
||
Line 1:
{{
{{FormerFA}}
{{WikiProject Computer science}}
Line 59:
It seems that this article would benefit considerably from material contained in the German WP article. [[User:213.3.104.34|213.3.104.34]] 07:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
*If you can convince someone to provide a translation, I would be happy to incorporate the material into the English article. Unfortunately, I do not speak German. -- [[User:Creidieki|Creidieki]] 19:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed ==
The [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] for [[{{PAGENAME}}]] has failed{{#if: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.|, for the following reason(s):|. <font color="red">'''Please provide a reason!'''</font>}} {{#ifeq:{{{norefs}}}|yes|
*The article does not [[WP:CITE|cite its sources]].|}} {{#ifeq:{{{shortlead}}}|yes|
*The [[WP:LEAD|lead section]] should be expanded to summarise more of the article's content.|}} {{#ifeq:{{{headings}}}|yes|
*Section headings should be capitalised according to the [[WP:MOS]].|}} {{#ifeq:{{{technical}}}|yes|
*The article may be too technical for a general audience to understand.|}}
: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)
| |||