Wikipedia:Peer review/Flow-based programming/archive1

Flow-based_programming

I am looking for feedback on improving the quality of this article. Thanks in advance. Jpaulm 01:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a very well crafted and thoughtful vanity edit for the sake of selling Jpaulm's book. Nice try, but a quick search around makes it obvious that this is not notable enough for a page in Wikipedia, and it reads like an advertisement. Perhaps if this concept catches on enough amongst the programming community and is developed into an actual practice, then it might be worth having an article for. Until then, I think the article should be deleted as spam. —Memotype 13:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, but a) the book is now out of print - every copy has been sold, and only 2nd hand copies are available, so I am only quoting the book for reference purposes, and b) it has caught on, as I tried to show via the External Links section. I googled "Flow-Based Programming" (in quotes), and got 706 hits (not all of them my articles :-) ). Also I believe the fact that 3 companies that I know of are using the term in their web sites is significant. Could you please suggest how I can correct the impression you received, and that presumably others might also pick up. TIA. Jpaulm 16:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was a bit hasty with my review, but my impression was guided these observations:

The vast majority of edits to the article have been made by Jpaulm — making me think the article itself isn't notable enough to warrant much community involvement in the article.
Most of the papers referenced by the article which weren't writen by J. Paul Morrison seem to refer to "flow" in very abstract senses, not necessarily the way the caoncept is portrayed in the article. To be fair, I didn't read all of them, and the ones I did glance at I mostly skimmed.
The article at the time left me hanging about what exactly it is. However, the article has improved a bit since. I will re-read, and re-review later. —Memotype 19:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it is notable. --Ideogram 19:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a notable Wikipedian template which should hopefully alleviate concerns over the conflict of interest. Cedars 11:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ideogram for the kind word! And Cedars for the new tag - I didn't know that could be done! I don't quite understand why this is called "notable Wikipedian" though - shouldn't there also be a page for the author? Also, should I add a sentence explaining my motivation for listing the articles in the External Links section? Thanks in advance. Jpaulm 17:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]