Talk:Long and short scales/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

I'm sorry for the delay in getting to to this point, real life sort of got in the way. Pyrotec (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first comment refers to the title of the article, i.e. Long and short scales; its rather vague and I'm not convinced that it provides an adequate description of what the article is about.

I should make it clear that the precise title is not a determinant of whether or not this article is awarded GA-status during this review; however it is systematic of some of the problems within the article.

I don't regard this article, as it currently stands, as being compliant with WP:WIAGA, but I suspect that it could be made so in a reasonable time, so I will not not quick-fail this article. However, unless it is improved it will not make GA-status this time around.

I will now start a detailed review of the article, concentrating mostly on the "bad points", so this whole section is likely to be somewhat negative; but the good points will be addressed by the end of the review. As the WP:Lead is intended to both Introduce the article and summarise the main points, I normally leave it until last, however in this case I will cover it twice: once as an introduction and, at the end, as a summary. Pyrotec (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Lead - Y Pyrotec (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this section only in respect of an "Introduction", it is possibly only two sentences: the first mentioning Long and Short scales; and the second about other number systems that are neither short nor long. I'm not convinced that this is adequate; and I'm going to suggest that the existing text be reconsidered.
"Stepping back" somewhat, we are discussing whole and real numbers of base ten, i.e. 0 to 9, (I suspect that there is not a problem with fractions of one billion and smaller - but I have no objection to fractions being included). Such base-10 numbers can be written uniquely in digits and words in unitary values, tens, hundreds, etc, up to tens of and hundreds of millions; but after that the differences between long and short scales come into play. I suspect that the same problem would apply to the use of Roman numerals - I tend to see them most in dates (years), some I'm not too certain of how billions might be written. This "problem" does not appear to apply to binary nor hexadecimal numbering systems. This type of information needs to be captured in the Lead.
The final paragraph appears to be a mix of history, which could be considered as part of the Introduction and/or part of the summary function.

Pyrotec (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison - Y Pyrotec (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section has two partial sentences; a "see also"; an unreferenced paragraph and two unexplained tables.
There needs to be a proper explanation of the tables with a description of what they are attempting to show:

In the first table, Value is undefined. It appears to be expressing numbers in the form of "number - whole, or real" multiplied by a "multiplier" - expressed as ten to the power x (i.e. 10^x) - but this is not explained anywhere. However, I'm not sure that this is totally correct, since the next column Value Expanded is a sequence of one, one thousand, etc, increasing in thousands; so perhaps Value is intended to be 1 * 10^3x, where x=0, 1, 2, etc; but the "1 * " (sort of) has been forgotten, ignored, or dismissed as unimportant, etc, etc. This vagueness, lack of precision and lack of adequate explanation is not acceptable for an article purporting to be of GA-standard. The descriptors Scientific notation and Engineering notation appear much later, in Alternative approaches, - this is just butchered scientific / engineering notation, but without explanation.
Logic (used twice) - totally undefined / without explanation; but on each line the two values are different and unexplained. Both use ages appear to reflect increments of 1,000: the first use is clearly increasing in thousands; whilst the second is increasing as the square root of a million (which perhaps unsurprisingly happens to be a thousand), but why make it so obtuse?

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second table is a shortened version of the first: as before Value and Logic need to be explained.

History -

Quite a readable section; however, but "Nowadays" is rather vague, it does not address the (unasked) question when did the UK stop using the long scale (that is answered elsewhere, but not here)?
None of the paragraphs are referenced, i.e. they do not comply with WP:Verify.

- Timeline -

An apparently comprehensive summary, possibly half of which is verifiable through references.

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current usage -

Overall a good section, but its not too clear from the way it is presented here whether the UK, other than Wales, is using the Short scale.

'Notes on current usage -

The information provided is quite good, however:

I would suggest that this is a subsection of the previous section, rather than a section in its own right.
There is inconsistent citation placement, part of the section has endnotes before the full stop and part has them after the full stop.
Whilst the statements made about some countries is verifiable, for other countries it is not; and unfortunately, ref 18 is shown as a "dead link" - dead since 2010-05-02.

Alternative approaches -

This section is vague and internally inconsistent in places, i.e.:

10⁹ = "one thousand million" - well not quite. Scientific notation and Engineering notation are invoked in the line below, so 1 x 10⁹ = one thousand million and 2 x 10⁹ = two thousand million. 10⁹ is just "thousand million", how many is undefined.
"Combination of numbers with more than 3 digits with million, as in 15,300 million."? Well that might be OK if we are suggesting that the value is somewhere between 15,200 million and 15,400 million; but why the arbitrary implied precision, could not 15,000 million or 16,000 million be used and if not why not?
I suspect that this is avoiding some of the (possibly deliberate) vagueness in computer, etc, "memory": where "k" can be 1,000 or 1,024; "m" can (1,000)², (1,024)², or (1,024,000); and after that it just gets rather silly.

WP:Lead -

Returning to the Lead, as a summary:
- :* The final paragraph appears to be a mix of history, which could be considered as part of both the introduction and the summary functions of the lead. Other than this there is no attempt to summarising the main points.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold for these points to be addressed/considered. Pyrotec (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pro tem response to GA Review[edit]

Pyrotec, Many thanks for your review above and apologies for the apparent lack of reaction / response. I have been looking at your points, and had hoped to formulate a reply (albeit individual rather consensus amongst editors of this article). However, as per your review, I have been held up in real life. I will hopefully be back in hours rather than days. Apologies again, Ian Cairns (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to GA Review[edit]

Firstly, thanks again for the review, and apologies for the delay in responding. I note that no other editors have jumped in here yet - but they are most welcome. I would like to address all your points, with the possible exception of the title change, since I cannot see any obvious alternative to that. I'm open to alternative suggestions on this point from yourself or other editors. The suggested changes may not all be applied today, and may provoke wider editing. Taking your review headings one at a time:

Title

Open to suggestions. Without splitting the article, I can't see any obvious alternative titles that describe the article's content?

Lead

Action: Reconsider wording of Introduction

Comparison

Action: Add introductions for tables

Action: Reconsider table headings

History

Action: Try to locate references

Action: Reconsider description of end of UK

Timeline

Action: Try to locate further references??

Current usage

Action: Clarify Wales & UK

Notes

Action: Consider subsection, etc., copyediting

Alternative approaches

Action: Corrections

Thanks again, Ian Cairns (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

The article has been improved somewhat, and is generally of GA standard.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Generally compliant; however, the Current usage section is not particularly well referenced and is often based only on foreign language versions of wikipedia.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
No illustrations provided.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
No illustrations provided.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Generally compliant; however, the Current usage section is not particularly well referenced and is often based only on foreign language versions of wikipedia - which by WP:Circular means not WP:verifiable.

I awarding this article GA-status. As commented upon, above, this article is not particularly well cited in the Current usage section; and could go with on-going improvement. Pyrotec (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]