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