Talk:Brooks–Iyengar algorithm

COI ?

This page was created by User:Sitharama.iyengar1 which strongly suggests issues of conflict of interest and original research. The article as it currently reads is also not presented to a general encyclopedia audience: the first sentence includes language incoherent to a non-specialist: " multi-dimensional fault tolerant algorithms", "distributed processing of sensor input intervals". Hairhorn (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Give me a chance to work on the article...  kgrr ^talk 16:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Notability is there. I can provide at least a dozen references and several from books.  kgrr ^talk 16:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits

It's worthwhile to keep, it just needs to be explained at a layman's level and made encyclopedic.  kgrr ^talk 16:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues with the two new sections.

Two new sections have been recently introduced, which have many issues. Some of them are related to the style, but some others break or seem break basic policies of Wikipedia. therefore, I'll revert these additions. Here are the main issues.

• WP:NOTESSAY: The whole section is written as an essay. A witness of this is the massive use of WP:PEACOCK terms, including blatant exaggerations ("The Algorithm has influenced billions of computers and internet users across globe in various domains").
• WP:SYNTHESIS: The whole section is unsourced original synthesis. The four sources that are provided are primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY) for applications of Brooks–Iyengar algorithm, not for the synthesis.
• WP:Reliable sources: These four primary sources are not reliable in the sense of Wikipedia: One is a software repository, one is a unpublished report, one is a software presentation at a conference, and one is published in a journal of regional audience (South America). There is nothing supporting that they deserve to be mentioned in an encyclopedia.
• WP:NPOV: The section as if there were no other algorithm for the same problem, or as if these algorithms are variants of the Brooks–Iyengar algorithm. This is unbelievable in such an important area.
• Suspected WP:COPYVIO: The text seems to be copied-pasted from a text written elsewhere. A witness of this is the use of "Figure [3]" and "[17]" in a context where these numbers are nonsensical.
• Suspected WP:COI: The use of first names only for denoting some contributors "Pablo and Gabriel" suggests a strong connection with the editor. Alsoa, the editor is a WP:SPA.

As each of these issues is a valid reason for a revert, I'll revert these sections. D.Lazard (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Lateshkj, please respond to these concerns instead of re-adding the removed information. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• WP:NOTESSAY: The impact of the algorithm is on its way in Chpater Book, Since algorithm is described in here, the influence and its impact needs to be addressed.
• WP:SYNTHESIS: Yes, It is true, the algorithm is used as training material at universities, and in RT MINIX, hence the word stands its meaning.
• WP:Reliable sources: A Journal on this algorithm is under review
• WP:NPOV: Every research has its own impact and weight, we are focusing on our algorithm at the same time we have mutual respect other algorithms too.

WP:COPYVIO: The images are created for the journal papers (under review).. the same images were used, we will certainly update image titles WP:COI: These two authors have adopted the Algorithm and enhanced it by adding additional features. Let us know

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lateshkj (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The links at the beginning of each issues are links to Wikipedia policies. So, answering needs to show that these policies are respected, not, as Lateshkj did, to explain what the editor think that the policies should be. In particular, using material coming to a submitted article is a copyvio that is strictly forbidden by Wikipedia. This suffices to remove the added content, and I'll do that.

By the way, Wikipedia rules for solving an editorial conflict are summarized in WP:BRD. In summary, when you are reverted, you must not revert the revert, which is WP:edit warring. Instead you must discuss on the talk page and wait for a consensus (see WP: Consensus) for including or rejecting you edit. Because of the number of issues, I doubt that you can get a consensus for accepting your edit. D.Lazard (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Lateshkj, a journal that is still "under review" is likely not published, and does not count as a reliable source. If something is "on its way", do not add it to Wikipedia yet. For text donations, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

You do not seem to have addressed the "conflict of interest" concern in your response, despite linking to the guideline. Your response to the "synthesis" point appears to be contradictory ("Yes, It is true"?).

Focusing on "your algorithm" may cause the article to have an undue weight towards the algorithm. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

What are interval measurements

The intro refers to "the interval measurements taken by a distributed sensor network," but interval measurement is not explained here or in distributed sensor network. - Rod57 (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)