Talk:Scheme (programming language)/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:21, 12:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:21, 12:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Introduction
As I've extensively rewritten this article over the past week or so I would like a reassessment of its "Good Article" status. --TS 01:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is likely to take at least day or so, as Lisp (and its variants) is topic of which I have no practical experience. Pyrotec (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments
I don't understand Lisp programming so I will not be carrying about any technical checks on the examples, but if they don't make sense to me I will ask questions here, and depending on what responses are received will influence whether GA-status is awarded or not. I also tend to leave the WP:Lead until last. It is intended to do two things: introduce the article and summarise the main points in the article. Whilst I need to make use of the "introductory" aspects of the Lead, it is often better to review it's "summarising function" at the end of the review.


 * Origin -
 * This is a short single paragraph section with a Main link to History of the Scheme programming language.
 * Now History of the Scheme programming language discusses Lisp, Algol and the Lambda Papers. The Lead mentions Lisp and the Lambda Papers; and Algol and the Lambda Papers get mentioned again in Distinguishing features, so why does this section not mention Algol (and posibly the Lambda Papers) as part of the origins of Scheme (programming language)?


 * Distinguishing features -

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Minimalism-
 * Its not clear what is the purpose of Ref 8; or indeed whether it is a reference or a note. Its about Scheme48 that does not appear to be discussed anywhere else in the article. Its also a User manual, so this appears to a WP:Primary source, that it is not used in the article.

Overall comments
Unfortunately, I find that the major of this article incomprehensible. At this point, there are two fundamental questions that need to be asked (and addressed):
 * what or who is the intended audience (this is an encyclopedia after all);
 * what information is this article trying to impart?

The WP:Lead provides quite a good Introduction to Scheme (which is only one of the functions of the lead). It is also intended to summarise the main points in the article - but that brings us back to what is the main point of the article?

Origin is a short one-paragraph section. First sentence states (I think) that it was an experiment and that it was expanded; the second, third and fourth sentences discuss its name.

There is no attempt (unlike the Lisp (programming language) or Common Lisp articles) to explain how it, "one of the two main dialects of the programming language Lisp" might be used. Instead, Distinguishing features features are discussed - this forms most of the article and is mostly (to me) incomprehensible.

Review of standard forms and procedures - there is little explanation of appears to be a list in tabular form of operators/functions copied across from an operating manual.

Scheme Requests for Implementation - portable extensions to the standard - there is no explanation RSFI, merely a list possibly copied across from an operating manual.

Implementations, R6RS and Usage - are understandable. I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that Implementations might usefully come before Distinguishing features.

The requirements of a GA are given in: WP:WIAGA. I'm coming to the conclusions that it fails: -
 * 1 (a) - it uses technical terms (jargon) that is wikilinked but are not explained.
 * 3 (b) - I'm coming to the conclusion that the lack explanation of jargon, merely lists and tables, represents unnecessary detail.


 * I'm willing to accept the examples as "illustrations".

At this stage I'm putting the review On Hold and ask the Nominator to consider the points and possibly to consider the way forward. As it stands, I would not award this article GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the intro to the distinguishing features section, giving more explanations. I think one problem is that that section progresses from the abstract to the concrete - I appreciate how elegantly you can implement  with , but the average reader (sadly enough even the average non-Lisp programmer) will understand neither    nor  . I would suggest to start with some simple things (examples of s-expressions like   and maybe a define) and then slowly work up. Given how small and beautiful Scheme is, this should easily have the potential for a FA. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm not awarding GA-status this time around - see my comments above on how I think this article could be brought up to standard. Pyrotec (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)