Template:Did you know nominations/Quantum refereed game

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Allen3 ^talk 11:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues

Quantum refereed game

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that quantum refereed game, where a referee has access to a quantum computer, has the same complexity as classical refereed game, where the referee can only use a classical computer?

• Reviewed: Some article 5 years ago (can't remember the name anymore)
• Comment: Hook came from reference #1 in the article. Feel free to drop the image if it's too "complex" for main page.

Moved to mainspace by Applixy (talk). Nominated by OhanaUnited (talk) at 05:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC).

• Name, date, length, and hook check out! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'm probably just being dense, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. Where in the article does it state this fact? Also, the article is lacking references in various sections: both the Zero sum quantum refereed game and QRG sections have no references at all. Harrias ^talk 08:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• I emailed User:Applixy, who wrote this article, and asked her to reply here. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• These two sections mostly contain definitions/derivations from reference #1 of the article. I included the reference at the definitions.Applixy (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the work you have done, however, I still don't see where the hook fact is presented in the article? Harrias ^talk 20:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• The hook is another way of expressing the QRG = EXP result in the article. Applixy (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• As Harrias has not returned, need someone else to decide whether this indeed satisfies the hook fact. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've just taken a look and noticed that if the hook is backed up by the QRG = EXP result, then that result is not, as required, given an inline source citation. The penultimate sentence of the QRG section material—the one with this result in it—must itself be referenced, per DYK rules, for this to be eligible for DYK. (I think there's an extra period in the middle of the final sentence after the "EXP = RG ⊆ QRG" equation.) The definition of a classical RG (classical referred game) as being equal to EXP has been sourced at the end of the "Classical RG" section. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Since DYK also requires sourcing of individual paragraphs—though it's hard to identify paragraphs with equations dotting the landscape—I think that each section, at a bare minimum, must have a source citation. In particular, the Definition section should have at least one citation per term being defined, the Min-Max Theorem section certainly should be cited, and the first paragraph of Classical RG should also be cited. Once these citations have been provided, the nomination should be ready to go. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• The last edit of Applixy, the creator, was over a month ago (it's the one from January 27 above); before that was a handful of edits on January 9 and then nothing until December 13. The nominator, OhanaUnited, has not responded to recent talk page pings, the last of which was made on February 20. As such, I don't see any reason to think that the sourcing issues for hook and article will be addressed any time in the near future, so I'm marking this nomination for closure as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)