Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Euclidean algorithm/archive1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:26, 28 April 2009

Revision as of 01:10, 28 April 2009

Line 36:

**If you are referring to the subsection that begins, "Three related mathematical methods are used often in the arguments below..." That is an explanatory paragraph explaining the article elements, in particular, explaining what typical math proof method will be used further down. That does not require citation. Looking through the article, I see plentiful citations. I suspect what Ottava Rima is referring is to paragraphs where the initial statement might be sourced, but further explanation or example is not (although it is simply a further explication of what the initial sentence said). I wonder if Ottava Rima is familiar with [[WP:SCG]], since I cannot see how the article fails the SCG. I think there is some confusion that would be remedied by reading "Examples, derivations and restatements" section of the SCG in particular. --[[User:C S|C S]] ([[User talk:C S|talk]]) 23:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

***Unless it is sourced, it is possibly Original Research. Now, from the guideline that you quoted: "The no original research and verifiability policies are of paramount importance to Wikipedia. Information presented in Wikipedia should be easily verifiable by anyone who wishes to do so. To ease verification, sources should be detailed by the articles." This article fails that. The whole page has over 50 sections needing citations. Such things are 100% unacceptable in an FA. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 00:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

****You've been claiming a lot citation violations, but have yet to demonstrate one example. Could you show me an example paragraph from the article that violates the SCG? You cited the opening sentences of the SCG, but I'm not sure you've read further past it. --[[User:C S|C S]] ([[User talk:C S|talk]]) 01:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)