Flow-based programming was agood articles nominee, but did not meet thegood article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can berenominated. Editors may also seek areassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 27, 2006 Peer review Reviewed September 25, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status:Former good article nominee

This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

ComputingLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcomputers,computing, andinformation technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale.

The following Wikipediacontributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may includeconflict of interest,autobiography, andneutral point of view. Jpaulm (talk ·contribs)

In the "Comparison with other paradigms and methodologies" of the page I think this would really be a welcome addition. Subjects seem VERY similar to me conceptually, though rather separated in people and content. A good comparison could help a bit in a 'joining of forces' kind of way ?— Precedingunsigned comment added bySteltenpower (talk •contribs)07:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

can someone put a link to the FBP-9 submachine gun article on this? I was looking for that and ended up here—Precedingunsigned comment added by68.0.144.113 (talk)01:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FBP apparently needs a disambiguation page.Jpaulm (talk)13:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just created it - someone needs to create/link to an article on the FBP-9, and I have also reinstated the link to Fructose 1,6-bisphosphate, which apparently uses the same acronym.Jpaulm (talk)14:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please give us time to fill out the article. This article was created less than ten minutes ago.Ideogram21:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading about languages, learning some over time but have never been the best at it so I might not be the best to review it anyway. I would think this article meet all the criteria but is really technical and really tough to understand by newbies so I will refrain from giving a real assessment but just to let you know, I might not be the only one turned off by the technicallity behind such a topic. Good luck with the GA process.Lincher22:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to review this article for GA, but I might need to do some copyedit, and then next is the decision. So please wait... ;-) —Indon (reply) —08:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I refrain to do the copyedit, as I found that the major contributor is the author of the book. Thus I will jump directly to the GA review as given in the next section. —Indon (reply) —10:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most difficult article for me to review, though I've a background in software engineering. The main reason is that themajor contributor of this article is the inventor and also the author of the only Flow Based Programming book[1], who also has his ownwikipedia page about him. For me, it is difficult to distance myself this article as an encyclopedic article from an advertising one. According toNo Original Research policy:

Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come fromverifiable (i.e. published) sources. Thus, if an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, then the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with ourNPOV policy.

So, in this case, I've decided to limit myself and to scrutinize only the criterion (4) ofWP:WIAGA, i.e. aboutWP:NPOV. As of 25 September 2006, this is my assessment limited to criterion (4):

4. It follows theneutral point of view policy.

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias: →failed

All comparisons of FBP with other programming paradigms are taken from chapters from the book. For example, with JSP is Chapter 24, Applicative programming is Chapter 25, with Linda is Chapter 27, with OOP is Chapter 26, and so on. Thus simply all of this comparisons are cited from the book, which means that no other third parties views are given in this matter. Prose of the Comparison section is similar with Preface of a book.

I have to say that when I was reading the whole page, it was just like reading data chunks (borrowed from your term) from the book. To me, clearly, that this is a typical of a vanity article, where all materials are presented to promote the book (seeWP:FAIR). If the major contributor of this article is not the author of the book, perhaps I am not going to say that this is a vanity article, but rather an article with lack of materials from other references.

Therefore this article is bias, only presenting views from the author of the book (and by the author himself).

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic. →failed

Now, let me see what significant views that are presented here:

• Comparisons with other methodologies are not enough. Other third parties (not the author) views are needed to make a fair comparison.
• Criticism to FBP is missing. Well, if you are the author/inventor of the method, then you tend to hide this issue.
• Method's limitation is not given. There's no such a perfect method.

There is also definitely a conflict of interest, i.e. interest of the author to promote the book.

For a feedback, if editors wish to improve this article to be a GA, then I suggest to ask other peer contributors to edit the article, reduce materials from single source, introduce materials from other references, and fairly put these materials in the article. There is also my concern about the prose, as technical jargons are not briefly introduced and the prose is likely not for a common reader.

Based on the above assessment, I failed GA status for this article. If you disagree with my assessment, then you can always put this article inWP:GA/R. I don't mind at all. Cheers. —Indon (reply) —10:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The company involved has added an entry titled title =Infopipe is registered as a Trademark or Service Mark with the US Patent and Trademark Office to the References. Apparently they speak the truth: the trademark was registered to them in 2001, but the format is all wrong!!! Suggestions? TIAJpaulm01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How isflow-based programming different fromdataflow programming? It seems that they are different terms for the same thing. If they are different, there should be paragraphs in each article doing a compare/contrast. Otherwise, I would recommend merging into the olderdataflow programming and makingflow-based programming a redirect. --IanOsgood22:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flow-based programming definitely belongs to the categorydataflow programming, as doLabVIEW and a number of others listed in the article ondataflow programming. Almost all of these have their own pages in Wikipedia, so it seems reasonable to treatFlow-based programming, which has its own history and focus, similarly.Jpaulm20:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm a bit dense today, but I'd like further clarification for the "main line" description. With the latest adittion, I understand "neither the input nor the output end can be used as the top of the call hierarchy (main line)" as "neither input or output data can be used to control the program main flow", but I'm not sure whether that interpretation is right (and "call hierarchy" or "main flow" should at least be wikilinked for readers that don't know those terms).Diego (talk)18:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your correction to the article - that seems like a very good solution. Are you OK with it as it is now?Jpaulm (talk)03:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer someone to explain WHY "the programmer has to realize that neither the input nor the output end can be used as the top of the call hierarchy". I think this would clarify the control issues that this example is trying to illustrate, but doesn't.Diego (talk)14:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Thanks, Diego!Jpaulm (talk)02:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I think the problem is better explained now in more standartd, understandable terms.Diego (talk)13:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering why two of the references in the History section to publications by Wayne Stevens have "primary-inline" tags attached. In the absence of an explicit reason, mousing over these tags produces "This claim needs references to reliable secondary sources". It appears that, at one time, @JzG was under the impression that Wayne Stevens was one of the inventors of FBP, whereas in fact he became aware of the project about 10 years after its inception (see the 1971 Technical Disclosure Bulletin vs. the dates on Wayne's cited publications). The issue cannot be Wayne's reliability as, in the '80s, he was already a highly regarded IBM software architect, with a number of books to his credit. Could someone look at these "primary-inline" tags, and remove them if they are judged unnecessary. TIAJpaulm (talk)19:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link onFlow-based programming. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20120206005615/http://www.ferg.org/papers/jackson--a_system_development_method.pdf tohttp://www.ferg.org/papers/jackson--a_system_development_method.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)20:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main website for FBP has been moved to GitHub. Please could someone change the URLhttp://jpaulmorrison.com/fbp/introduction.html tohttps://jpaulm.github.io/fbp/introduction.html , as I am not allowed to make changes to this article... BTW If this rule is no longer in force, please let me know...

TIAJpaulm (talk)16:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• C-Class Computing articles
• Low-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• Articles with connected contributors