Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuzzy logic/Archive 1

Fuzzy logic

I've nominated this article as it immediately strikes me as extremely well written. The tone of the prose is excellent, explaining a concept that could otherwise descend into reams of mathematical symbols in plain english, without losing any relavence. It is well discussed in the main body, with a variety of different sections with their own layout and style but that are totally consistent within themselves and with the other text. The article also answers newcomers questions fully, while providing relavent links to further topics and further mathematical study. In my view, an excellent candidate for a featured article. AdamSebWolf 09:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. I can't really speak for the article's comprehensiveness, not being a mathematician, but the following stand out to me:

It's alright to have a general bibliography, but the article needs some form of inline citation pointing readers to where facts given in the article were found.
Image:Warm fuzzy logic member function.gif could do with being converted to an SVG file, and possibly moved up to the lead if no better images can be found.
The "See also" section should be pared down a bit, either by linking within the article text or removing items that aren't particularly relevant.
The "Examples" section needs to be converted to prose.
The "Formal fuzzy logic" needs to be expanded into prose.
I don't personally like the portal link, particularly in the lead, as it smacks of WP:NSR, but I suppose it's not vital that it be removed.
Another personal issue is the number of redlinks in the Formal section. While the article can still be featured with these, it wouldn't take that much effort to create short stubs and convert them to blue links. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - Informal language in lead in which the author seems to be talking directly to the reader, as opposed to simply stating facts. Also, I'm uncomforatble with the way the "Misconceptions" section is laid out; it reads like a FAQ, less like an acedemic article. Fieari 17:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think my main concern is that this article doesn't properly cover defuzzification. I also felt the article was a bit light on explaining fuzzy logic from an axiomatic point of view — though this is forgivable since the article is an introduction to fuzzy logic. However it is disappointing that all of the links in the "Formal fuzzy logic" section are red suggesting there is no explanation of a formal fuzzy logic system on Wikipedia. Cedars 11:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Still seems like a rough draft. The prose is not excellent, and the examples meander somewhat. One particularly bad prose example: as gender is often considered as a binary information. So, it is not so complex like being tall. On top of this, the "how fuzzy logic is applied" section needs a lot of rework. It needs reorganization, expansion, and just general cleaning up (it seems somewhat repetitive). I'm not picking on the section because I think it's worse than the others, I'm picking on it because it seems like the most important section. 65.241.152.139 19:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]