Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Schulze method/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:48, 4 April 2009 [1].
Schulze method[edit]
- Nominator(s): Señor Señor Señor (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article explains a rather complicated single-winner voting system in a scientific and very elegant manner. Señor Señor Señor (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I second this nomination. Markus Schulze 19:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - references lack publishers and last access dates, some are just bare links. Some appear to be forum posts. There are embedded links in the article, which is contrary to the MOS. Unreferenced sections. I also suspect it's not comprehensive, since I don't see any impact or criticism sections. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This really isn't ready for nomination. C code to implement the method in a Wikipedia article? No chance. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - This article does not satisfy any of the Featured Article Criteria. Graham Colm Talk 18:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Query Hola Senor, When you state "Voters may give the same preference to more than one candidate and may keep candidates unranked." Don't you need to make it clear that this is an aspect where Schultze differs from STV and AV? ϢereSpielChequers 18:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Schulze method is used for Wikimedia's Board of Trustees elections. The lack of good references is caused by the fact that this is a very new election method. Markus Schulze 18:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Technical Comment -- Although it may fail prose/referencing wise, the disambiguation and external links are up to standards (as checked with the tools in the toolbox at the right), as is the ref formatting (as checked with the WP:REFTOOLS script).--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.