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

Revision as of 01:27, 28 April 2009

Revision as of 03:08, 28 April 2009

Line 37:

***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 since the rest of the introduction explains that there are different ways to satisfy these core polices. Then further on down in the first section it is explained that not every sentence or paragraph may require a citation depending on the type of material. --[[User:C S|C S]] ([[User talk:C S|talk]]) 01:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

*****Violations? No. FA has as a requirement that everything is verifiable. This requires all information to be cited. There are over 50 spots that need citations. I read through the whole article, as, when working on my classics degree, Euclid books 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 were included, so a page dealing with Euclid is something that I find interesting. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 03:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)