Talk:Flow-based programming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The inventor of this subject, Flow-based programming, has edited Wikipedia as Jpaulm (talk • contribs).

Flow-based programming has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Flow-based programming was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 25 September 2006

Contents 1 speedy delete 2 GA comment 3 GA failed 4 Infopipe

[edit] speedy delete

Please give us time to fill out the article. This article was created less than ten minutes ago. Ideogram 21:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA comment

I have been reading about languages, learning some over time but have never been the best at it so I might not be the best to review it anyway. I would think this article meet all the criteria but is really technical and really tough to understand by newbies so I will refrain from giving a real assessment but just to let you know, I might not be the only one turned off by the technicallity behind such a topic. Good luck with the GA process. Lincher 22:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to review this article for GA, but I might need to do some copyedit, and then next is the decision. So please wait... ;-) — Indon (reply) — 08:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I refrain to do the copyedit, as I found that the major contributor is the author of the book. Thus I will jump directly to the GA review as given in the next section. — Indon (reply) — 10:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

This is the most difficult article for me to review, though I've a background in software engineering. The main reason is that the major contributor of this article is the inventor and also the author of the only Flow Based Programming book [1], who also has his own wikipedia page about him. For me, it is difficult to distance myself this article as an encyclopedic article from an advertising one. According to No Original Research policy:

Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come from verifiable (i.e. published) sources. Thus, if an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, then the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy.

– WP:NOR, section Citing oneself

So, in this case, I've decided to limit myself and to scrutinize only the criterion (4) of WP:WIAGA, i.e. about WP:NPOV. As of 25 September 2006, this is my assessment limited to criterion (4):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias: → failed

All comparisons of FBP with other programming paradigms are taken from chapters from the book. For example, with JSP is Chapter 24, Applicative programming is Chapter 25, with Linda is Chapter 27, with OOP is Chapter 26, and so on. Thus simply all of this comparisons are cited from the book, which means that no other third parties views are given in this matter. Prose of the Comparison section is similar with Preface of a book.

I have to say that when I was reading the whole page, it was just like reading data chunks (borrowed from your term) from the book. To me, clearly, that this is a typical of a vanity article, where all materials are presented to promote the book (see WP:FAIR). If the major contributor of this article is not the author of the book, perhaps I am not going to say that this is a vanity article, but rather an article with lack of materials from other references.

Therefore this article is bias, only presenting views from the author of the book (and by the author himself).

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic. → failed

Now, let me see what significant views that are presented here:

• Comparisons with other methodologies are not enough. Other third parties (not the author) views are needed to make a fair comparison.
• Criticism to FBP is missing. Well, if you are the author/inventor of the method, then you tend to hide this issue.
• Method's limitation is not given. There's no such a perfect method.

There is also definitely a conflict of interest, i.e. interest of the author to promote the book.

For a feedback, if editors wish to improve this article to be a GA, then I suggest to ask other peer contributors to edit the article, reduce materials from single source, introduce materials from other references, and fairly put these materials in the article. There is also my concern about the prose, as technical jargons are not briefly introduced and the prose is likely not for a common reader.

Based on the above assessment, I failed GA status for this article. If you disagree with my assessment, then you can always put this article in WP:GA/R. I don't mind at all. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 10:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infopipe

The company involved has added an entry titled title = Infopipe is registered as a Trademark or Service Mark with the US Patent and Trademark Office to the References. Apparently they speak the truth: the trademark was registered to them in 2001, but the format is all wrong!!! Suggestions? TIA Jpaulm 01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)