The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Referencing problems including a mixture of inline and footnote citations. Either is fine. Pick one and be consistent in its use. Text inline like this: "and improved by Biham and Biryukov (1997)." shouldn't exist if footnote referencing is being used. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another reason why we need a "speedy delist" for former FA-class articles now in this lousy of shape. Once again, I think this is proof that FA is flawed: articles get promoted to a certain standard, and never get touched again after their promotion, even if the standards are increased. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See here; perhaps if you had written an FA yourself, you might feel differently about the amount of work that someone once put into this article. Patience, please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is still in terrible shape. I retract my statement on speedy-delists, but I still think it's absurd that articles can still be called "FA" if they are this bad. Fifelfoo's concerns about sources are, as always, spot-on. As tagged, there is one whole section that lacks sources entirely, and overall there seem to be several other unsourced areas. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)23:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
