Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Euclidean algorithm/archive1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Euclidean algorithm: resp on ottava's unusual opinions |
→Euclidean algorithm: Conditional Support |
||
Line 39:
*****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)
******Yes it's true that FA has a verifiability criterion. But it does not automatically follow that all information is needed to be cited. This is a logical jump not supported by any listed policy, guideline, or FA criterion. In addition, SCG has been found to be satisfactory in prior FA nominations by Raul and Sandy. So I'm afraid your opinion is just your opinion, without consensus, and will probably be ignored as far as this nomination goes. --[[User:C S|C S]] ([[User talk:C S|talk]]) 03:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
******I agree with CS. Please re-read [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] to gain a better understanding of the policy. My only quibble with respect to verifiability was the "oldest algorithm" bit. The discussion above has laid that objection to rest. [[User:Lwnf360|Lwnf360]] ([[User talk:Lwnf360|talk]]) 06:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
'''Conditional Support'''
*Overall, the article is excellent and it certainly meets criteria 1 and 2. In fact, arguments could be made that the article is ''too comprehensive'' i.e. includes too much on related topics (criterion 4). However, I would not support that argument. The image copyright issues raised by Awadewit should be corrected. Unless I have missed something major, in my view, the article should be featured. [[User:Lwnf360|Lwnf360]] ([[User talk:Lwnf360|talk]]) 06:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
| |||