Talk:Cantor's first set theory article/GA1
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Spinningspark (talk · contribs) 21:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Michael, I just saw this fascinating subject in passing, so I 'm going to review it, even though I don't usually review maths articles. I'm going to be busy tomorrow so might not be able to do a full review for a few days, but one thing jumps out at me straight away so I'll mention that now.
Is there really a controversy over the constructiveness of the proof, or is it merely two groups of mathematicians talking at cross purposes not understanding that the other is talking about a different proof? That would seem to be the case, but is far from clear in the lead. It strikes me that undue emphasis is being given to this when it amounts only to a mere misunderstanding of the other. Unless of course there really has been a decades long dispute with neither side ever realising that they were not talking about the same proof.
One minor point, MOS:HEAD says that headings should not contain questions. Although that is not actually something covered by the GA criteria. SpinningSpark 21:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)