Talk:Addition/GA1


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 21:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Notation and terminology

 * — I think this needs an inline citation, as it is "published opinion" (assuming the sentence was based on one of the references).
 * Link "iteration" to either the WP article or the Wiktionary definition.
 * — change to  (sounds more formal)


 * Added citation
 * Linked
 * Fixed

Interpretations

 * — is the link to rigor needed?
 * — the link to pie is irrelevant.
 * Removed link
 * Removed link

Properties

 * — Needs rephrasing; how about:
 * Define associativity.
 * Who says associativity is "subtler"? Needs an inline citation.
 * I don't think some of the line breaks are necessary. I would change:
 * to


 * and remove the line break after.


 * — This isn't explicitly linked to addition. I would presume the point is something along the lines of: "Following the standard order of operations, addition is a lower priority than exponentiation, nth roots, multiplication and division, but is given equal priority to subtraction." Please add text along these lines to the article.
 * On its first mention, "successor" should be linked to successor function.
 * Give some examples of the successor function. For instance, adding one to four yields five; five is the lowest integer greater than four. Seven is the 3rd successor [I assume] of four, as 4 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 7.
 * With the Units section, give an example of addition with identical units before going on to converting units (i.e. the feet/inches example). Something along the lines of  would suffice.


 * Defined in analog with commutativity
 * Removed unsourced statement, rewrote segment
 * Removed linebreaks
 * Changed the part on order of operations
 * Linked successor
 * Gave some examples
 * Used your text in units section, adapted next sentence

I'll try to review the rest of the article fairly quickly. — Bilorv (talk)(contribs) 21:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Performing addition

 * Change  to.
 * Change  and   to   and   for consistency with the rest of the article.
 * — This confused me for a second. The numbers don't go up to 10; they go up to 20, but the table features addends from 1 to 10 summed with augends from 1 to 10. Is there any clearer way to phrase this?
 * Can "big numbers" be replaced with "[numbers/terms] greater than 10" or something more specific?
 * Under the Decimal system subsection, several sums (e.g. ) need spaces to fit with the article's format; additionally, some sort of algebraic symbol needs to be used for "x" to differentiate it from a multiplication sign.
 * — The link to reform mathematics doesn't seem massively relevant; additionally, isn't "other alternative" a bit redundant?
 * The two bullet points linking to sections about adding fractions and numbers in standard form originally seemed to me as if they were alternative methods of "normal" counting with integers. Incorporate them into prose and maybe explain briefly how fractions and scientific-formatted numbers are added.


 * Changed
 * Changed
 * Tried a different statement about pairs of numbers
 * I may have deleted this sentence before seeing the review.
 * Spaced sums, italicized x.
 * Removed link to reform mathematics and the word "alternative".
 * Deleted redundant bullet point and expanded other bullet point into a new section


 * In the scientific notation section, remove bold from "Addition". Also, I don't understand the "roughly equal to" sign ($$\approx$$) at the end of the example. If the numbers given are exact, why wouldn't the answer produced be an exact figure?

Computers

 * — Remove "ingenious" (sounds biased).
 * Are redlinks to Pascal's calculator's complement and Adding board necessary?
 * — This is sourced to a reference from 2001. Is the information still accurate 13 years after the book was written?
 * De-link paper (in the last paragraph).


 * Removed ingenious
 * Removed redlinks (one was just a typo, I think, and the other I unwikified)
 * Changed statement to a weaker form and added another reference
 * De-linked

Addition of natural and real numbers

 * — Why is there emphasis on the word ?
 * Is note #28 really representative of education as a whole? California standards may differ from those in other U.S. states, let alone around the world. In any case, the links don't work any more so archives of them (like this one) should be linked somewhere in the note.
 * The sentence in brackets should end in a full stop (i.e. there needs to be a period after "route").
 * In the recursive example, spaces are needed in several of the sums.


 * Removed emphasis
 * Replaced with a much better reference from a published journal that is representative of standards across the globe (I really got into this paper when rewriting elementary mathematics.)
 * Added full stop
 * Added spaces.

I've just about managed to keep up with the technical stuff, but I'll try to look over the computing bit (no pun intended) again tomorrow. — Bilorv (talk)(contribs) 23:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

First revision
I made several changes; I've added responses to each item describing what actions were taken. Thanks for the clear input, and I look forward to further input. If anything is worse now, feel free to revert.Brirush (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the issues have been fixed; I've just made one comment above about the scientific notation section. — Bilorv (talk)(contribs) 11:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Integers

 * Is it worth giving an example of the first definition? The "different signs" rule threw me for a second.  My example could probably be made a bit less confusing.

Rational numbers (fractions)

 * I think we need some examples here. For example, $$\frac 34 + \frac 18 = \frac{3 \times 8+4 \times 1}{4 \times 8} = \frac{24 + 4}{32} = \frac{28}{32} = \frac{7}{8}$$.
 * Incorporated this example


 * But more basic than that, is it not important to note that for numbers with a common denominator, the numerators can simply be added? $$\frac ac + \frac bc = \frac{a + b}{c}$$, so $$\frac 14 + \frac 24 = \frac{1 + 2}{4} = \frac 34$$. This leads in to the least common denominator bit.
 * Incorporated this discussion with a reference

— Bilorv (talk)(contribs) 11:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Real numbers

 * — Needs a source and/or more neutral phrasing.
 * Made more neutral and added source

Related operations

 * I would include an introduction: something along the lines of:
 * Done


 * Bold should be removed from "Subtraction", "Multiplication" and "Division": the terms do not link there. Instead, fourth-level headings could be used if necessary.
 * Removed bold


 * Terms in the Other ways to add subsection have the same problem.
 * Removed bold

In literature

 * Are either of the uses relevant to the article? You could list thousands of times addition has been used or mentioned in literature, television, film or other media, but I'm not sure any are significant enough to be mentioned in this article. The section doesn't appear to be referenced, either.
 * Deleted section

Absences

 * I noticed adding matrices aren't covered in the article. It is very briefly mentioned in the lead, but I think a summary and Main link to Matrix addition is needed.
 * Done (copied and adapted from matrix addition)


 * Addition of decimals isn't covered (e.g. 2.3 + 6.8 = 9.1).
 * Done briefly in my own words with a reference and example


 * There is a section on the decimal system but not any other bases: how about addition in binary, for example? Computers using binary arithmetic is mentioned, but it isn't explained why 12 + 12 = 102 or how one would calculate 10012 + 11102.
 * Done (copied and adapted from binary addition)

Lead

 * — I'm not really sure what the point of the first sentence is. Okay, so rules involving addition can be proved: does this need to be stated in the lead? In the second sentence, abstract algebra and binary operations are tangential to addition, and don't need to be mentioned in the lead.
 * Removed two sentences

Other comments

 * This is my fault because my example text had this problem, but according to WP:UNIT, units of measurement should be spelled out in full, and non-breaking spaces should be used between units of measurement.   should be changed to
 * Done


 * The link to Recursion Theorem (under #Natural numbers) leads to a disambiguation page; I think the intended target is recursion.
 * Redirected


 * The article can be added to Category:Mathematical notation.
 * Done

The article is now being placed on hold. — Bilorv (talk)(contribs) 14:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Second revision
Thanks for the review! I have made the changes you requested. Please let me know if there is any additional work required. I feel the article is much better after your recommendations, especially regarding new sections.

Final comments

 * — This last paragraph under Addition in other bases is not necessary, and largely repetitive given the first sentence in the section is
 * The level headings seem to be a bit messed up with Decimal system, Addition of decimal fractions and Scientific notation. The latter is currently a sub-heading under the second, which seems a bit odd to me (I wouldn't really call scientific notation a type of decimal); I think the problem might be that "Addition of decimal fractions" should be a fourth-level heading instead of a third-level heading.
 * "Maximum operations" (under Ordering) does not need to be in bold.

However, these few minor issues aren't stopping the article from passing the GA criteria, so I'm promoting the article. Thanks for addressing my comments, and I hope the article is improved because of them. — Bilorv (talk)(contribs) 15:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 