Talk:Rule 184

Suggested name change

See Talk:Rule 30#Suggested name change--RDBury (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability

This seems like yet another one of Wolfram's vanity pages. I'm having a hard time believing that this topic deserves an article. The last section in particular is bad in that it cites results from a poorly received book and offers his opinions on the matter as if they were gold. For this reason, I am removing the last section.206.205.250.4 (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The book is a reliable source and presents what I feel to be an interesting interpretation of the rule. Wolfram may have had issues with egotism and taking credit for other people's work in other contexts, but I don't think that is reflected in the current article, which merely cites his book as one source among 22, and repeats an observation that as far as I know is original to him. Your apparent animosity towards Wolfram is not a good reason for censoring all mention of him from topics towards he has actually contributed useful insights. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

GA review

I have finished my review of the article, and I judge that it meets all of the good article criteria. The transcript of the review is at Talk:Rule 184/GA1. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree this is GA-class. The lead is in bullet form, there are unreferenced paragraphs, the citation style is inconsistent (footnotes mixed with Harvard, page numbers are sometimes in footnotes, sometimes in reference section), this is C-start or a generous B-class. I guess this should be taken to WP:GAR. PS. Since GAR these days recommends individual reassessments and saving the article, I'll ping the author and the reviewer: User:Chalst, User:David Eppstein. I'd hope that the references could be fixed without too much trouble - just make sure that each paragraph has a reference, and use consistent style (I suggest converting all Harvard style to more common footnotes, personally). For example, the first paragraph "Definition" has three unreferenced, one sentence paragraphs (one sentence paragraphs are bad prose style, btw); then a bullet list, which has the first bullet referenced in Harvard style, second, unreferenced, and third, referenced with a footnote. With all due respect, this is a mess that needs to be fixed for GA-level article. PPS. Just in case my tone here is a bit strict, I do want to commend the author for writing a fine article; it is a good job - we just need to tie some loose MoS ends. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The references are in a consistent form: Harvard for places in text where mentioning the authors is relevant (e.g. as an attribution for a quote or idea), footnoted Harvard where only a bare reference is needed. The unreferenced paragraphs in the lead section are very standard for leads. As for bullets: they were specifically addressed by the GA reviewer. The only relevant GA criterion is WP:USEPROSE and I think that is purely about lists of things. The bullets in the lead are a very different structure — actual paragraphs of text with the bullets indicating their logical structure — and I think that your opinion that one shouldn't write like that is creepy. The material you claimed needed a source in the definitions paragraph were entirely routine calculations (following immediately from the name and the definition of the Wolfram code) but I added some sources anyway. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)