Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ackermann function

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ackermann function

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Pakaran, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science. Sandy 15:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Became a featured article way back in March 2004, reviewd in Oct 04 Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Ackermann function. I don't think it meets current FA standards. In particular the introduction does not establish context in simple terms which the layman could understand. --Salix alba (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• The subsection Ackermann_function#Ackermann_numbers could use some help from someone good at LaTEX towards the end where it shows the fourth ackerman number. Currently it only uses HTML to express this. Kaimiddleton 20:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• This has been done --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have to agree that this is not at all up to FA standards. There is the issue of readability by the layman of course, although for this kind of article I think it's unwise to insist too much on that goal. Still, I don't think anyone can seriously say that the prose is compelling or brilliant (even with the right amount of background). I'm also worried about the comprehensiveness of the article. A number of things could be expanded on. For instance it would not be evident to most that we should care that there are non-primitive-recursive functions and there should be some better intuitive notion of primitive recursive (unfortunately, the article about it is not really helping). Also, I may be wrong but what's Gödel got to do with any of this? It looks like gratuitous name-dropping. Pascal.Tesson 06:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• The lead is problematic. Short and complicated.
• In the lead again computability theory directs to a disambiguation page. This is inacceptable for the lead of a FA.
• And I see very very few inline citations.

I think all three issues can be worked.--Yannismarou 14:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that the extended discussion of On The Infinite and the discussion of the Busy Beaver function are not relevant to this article.

• The link to computability theory is shorthand for linking to both Recursion theory and Computability theory (computer science). Replacing it with a link to either one alone would be incorrect. Perhaps someday there will be a single correct article to link to, but that day is not here yet. CMummert 17:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oops. I just dabbed it. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Though I will say that Computability theory (computer science) seems much more complete than Recursion theory, and they both have links to the other. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are LEAD (2a), citations (1c), and accessibility and quality of writing (1a). Marskell 10:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove no activity since listing, problems remain. --Peta 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Not even up to GA standards, and no real work has been done for a while.--Dark Kubrick 19:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - Fails criterion 1. c. LuciferMorgan 08:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)