Talk:Constant-recursive sequence/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Caleb Stanford (talk · contribs) 00:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Dedhert.Jr (talk · contribs) 03:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in this field, but judging from my perspective, I'm aware this is not ready to become a potential GA. I will give a list, though it may be either quickfail this article or give a chance to improve them. Probably this needs a second opinion strongly. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another potential technical GA number theory article, I suppose, may be possible to do quickfailed. There are many problems, some of which may be listed below:

One such problem is that this article has some unsourced paragraphs: in the definition, equivalent definition, and many more sections (GACR2b). Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, I can see sequences mathematically written after naming the sequences. Why can't we simply remove them, making the reader understand the abstraction at the beginning? (GACR1b) We already have an examples section containing a list of sequences in the table, though it may discussed further below. Also, I do not understand why you need to repeat defining the topic twice in both the lead and definition sections. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same section here, I wonder if you could put the-unsolved-problem-template, somewhere the section mentions it. Same reason for those two images in the lead. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definition: The math display="block" already gives an indentation of the formula, so why do you need to add a colon? Do you also need to emphasize the boldface word order? Do you need to bracket the sentence describing another nickname of the equation? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples: I do not understand here. Why do you need tables, whereas you also need more subsections to describe every cell in that table? Also, they are unsourced (GACR2b). Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent definitions: Is it fine to write " $\leq d$ ", instead of writing "less than or equal to $d$ ", as it may not be helpful for non-mathematical readers (GACR1a)? A "non-homogeneous linear recurrence" phrase may not need to be emphasized in boldface per MOS:BOLDTITLE.

Equivalent definitions, the images: Many tables may considered as the images with the following captions, a somewhat clever way but aesthetically abysmal after the gap appearance on the right side. Maybe I suggest cropping the formulas and uploading them (or do you have an alternative way, or whatever). Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed-form characterization: Pay attention to the MOS:EXPLAINSYMBOLS, suggesting that representing the symbols mathematically by using a list of bullets may cause excessive vertical space, which is instead of recommending the usage of prose. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalizations: I recommended you to read MOS:BULLETS, suggesting that the list of bullets start with the sentence case, and some other points described in that manual of style. Also, sources are required here (GACR3b). Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others are the comments that may suggest that you could add the parameter "inline" for every math formula in the inline paragraph, avoiding the excessive vertical spaces. Also, in the case of references, does Stanley 2011 have a publisher, as the source is said to be reliable if there are exist of authors, years published, and the publisher? I think this quickfailed the article, but I probably need a second opinion, stating this strongly and adding some more comments, or another user who gives opposition to these comments. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I think this could be quickfailed due to the failure of meeting one of GA criterias. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, I will address and fix all feedback inline (or if anyone else gets to it before me!) Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]