Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Forth/archive1

Forth[edit]

I believe this is an excellent article, on a par with other featured articles in the same category such as C programming language and Java programming language.

This is a self-nomination. Ideogram 04:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In-line citations. --Osbus 14:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is the book whose cover is on the top of the page has a significant history for the programing language, like the one in C programming language? If it's not, It should be removed. CG 17:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was the most popular introduction to Forth for a time and the one most users are familiar with. Ideogram 18:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is User:Mhx really the copyright holder? Jkelly 18:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no. I have fixed it to use an image with the proper copyright and fair use rationale. Ideogram 19:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on the Fair use rationale a little, as the article isn't about the book? I'm not disputing that it may be fair use, but I suggest more explanation is needed. Jkelly 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little unclear on this myself. I was following the model of C programming language which isn't really about the book either. I don't know what to say; if this is a problem we can remove the image. Ideogram 21:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added rationale. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ideogram 04:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The image isn't being described at all in the text- in fact, the words "Starting Forth " don't appear in the entire article. That makes the fair use assertion rather sub-par. Another, free-er image would be better. --Rory096 20:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've deleted the image. Ideogram 20:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. This is a good effort, but most of the paragraphs are not cited using inline footnotes. — Wackymacs 11:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear on what this means. Can you give an example of what is required? C programming language has only three footnotes, and Java programming language has none. Ideogram 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The standard of WP:FOOTNOTEs has risen greatly - before, references were not even required to become a WP:FA. Nowadays, most voters on this page look for at least somewhere around 1 footnote per section minimum. Andy _t 00:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object; needs more inline citations (several per section please, or at least one per paragraph), and perhaps a reduction in the number of external links. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 20:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do about the citations. Do you mean the External links section at the bottom? Can you give me some guidance as to what could be removed? Thanks. Ideogram 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say cut the communities, and reduce the number of implementation links drastically (does the average reader need all of them? There is google). Other redundant links can be removed too (only one on the history, for example). The idea is to provide links that are particularly useful and encyclopedic, not to include every good webpage that's related to the topic. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 21:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Google is that Forth hits the river, not the programming language, and phrases like "go forth" etc. This has been a common complaint amongst Forth advocates for years. The list is certainly encyclopedic in nature, and afiak is the only list of its kind. Alex 12:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how a list of implementations is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory. Not to mention that directories like dmoz.org already have reasonably comprehensive lists of implementations. --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article now has many citations and has been substatially rewritten. If anyone is still watching this page, please read the article and comment. Ideogram 21:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]