Talk:NETtalk (artificial neural network)

what is wrong with this article?
Why is someone questioning the neutrality of this article?

I would like to know why.


 * I didn't add the notice, but in reading the article my guess is because phrases such as "NETtalk is perhaps the best known artificial neural network", "It is a particularly fascinating neural network", "Claims have been printed in the past by some misinformed authors of NETtalk learning", are not the most neutral way of stating one's point. S  e  miconscious  •  talk  22:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess so. Some should rewrite this article once and for all. Why don't editors take responsibility for their work? Dessydes 14:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I will take care of this article when I have time
I suppose that the neutrality is a debatable point, but I consider it relatively trivial.

When people can't add content to the article, they whine about self-righteous ideas like neutrality.

NETtalk is not the most complex neural network out there, its nearly 20 years old. Isn't there anyone out there who can jump start this article?

My plans were to follow the structure of the original NETtalk article by Sejnowski et. al. and explain its ideas to make it more accessable, but it seems this article is all but unchanged from when I left it a few weeks ago.

--SanjaySingh 22:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)