Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Null (SQL)/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 16:58, 22 May 2007.
I am nominating this article because I believe it meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. The article Null (SQL) has been peer reviewed, and nominated and promoted to GA-Class. The article is stable, and is part of the Databases WikiProject. SqlPac 16:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - This reads a bit too much like a programming guide for my taste. You need to dumb it down so that laymen like me can understand it. Also, you have information on the history of Null in the lead, so why can't there be a history section in the article?--Danaman5 16:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback. We'll look at adding an in-depth history, although relational set-based mathematical formulae might be a little difficult (at best) to "dumb down". SqlPac 18:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: I agree with Danaman5's comment on the programming guide; it is way too confusing for me to even understand Null means. Also, for an article this size, perhaps the references are too few. Also, one of the links in the "Categories" field is a red link, leading nowhere. If it is removed, only one link would be left, not something of an FA, according to me. Also, the structure of the article is a bit weird. Also, the "See Also" section contains only two links, thus, through my perspective, kind of isolating it from the rest of Wikipedia. The same goes for the "External Links" section. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 17:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback. The "Categories" have been updated. It was recommended during Peer Review that we remove the many "See Also" links since they already appeared in the article, as wikified words. Is this a recommendation to add them back in? What's the recommended number? We can definitely locate and add more "External Links". We took some out because of a recommendation during Peer Review that we remove the ones referenced in the article. Again, is this a recommendation to add those back in? And what's the recommended number? We'll add a discussion of relational set-based mathematics to the article, complete with formulae to make it clearer. I'll also recommend removing all examples of NULL usage and code from the article so it will read more like a mathematics article. Thanks! SqlPac 18:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of interest, what don't you understand? I thought the page provides a decent overview - I've quickly gathered Null is simply a place-holder for "nothing", which isn't the same as 0, an empty string ("") or an error and provides several good examples where it's used and differs from that functionality. I've never used SQL for more than ten minutes or come across the term before and it's given a decent overview. -Halo 02:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just some general comments - don't dumb it down. Adding simplified explanations for complex concepts is good, but don't remove difficult material just because readers might not get it. I also disagree with removing usage examples. To be comprehensive, this stuff needs to be included. I've read the arguments against examples and I don't see much merit to them. As for see also sections, its just a style choice. Some editors choose to remove links from see also sections if they are already linked in the prose, some do not. --- RockMFR 01:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We've decided not to dumb it down. We're currently looking at ways to improve the content without turning into "See Spot Run", and have resigned ourselves to the fact that, like most technical content, it probably won't ever reach WP:FA status because it's not a celebrity biography or an article about a national flag. Thanks! SqlPac 01:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.