Talk:Factorial/GA2

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

Reviewer: Vogon101 (talk · contribs) 17:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Taking this on as part of the January Drive. Previous reviewer David Eppstein has put in a lot of work to bring this up to standard (thanks!), article does indeed seem much improved!

Other comments / improvements:
 * In Applicatios (computer science) might it be worth explicitly mentioning $$O(\log_2n)\in O(n\log n)$$ given that form would be more commonly known
 * Ok, expanded $$\log_2n!=n\log_2n-O(n)$$ (but because this is a lower bound, writing $$O(n\log n)$$ is incorrect; if written in that form it should be $$\Omega(n\log n)$$ but I don't want to take the space here to explain Omega and anyway $$n\log_2n-O(n)$$ is more accurate). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah - just feel a computer science user would recognise that better, and absolutely right you don't wanna get into omega/big o/theta etc... will continue review today Vogon101 (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

$$\Gamma(z)\Gamma(1-z)=\frac{\pi}{\sin\pi z}, \qquad z \not\in \mathbb Z.$$
 * Should the equation for Euler's reflection formula include the not in Z as stated in other sources? I think it might be possible also to state the line before slightly more clearly took me a short second to understand. Perhaps something like "This definition can be extended to the rest of the complex plane by solving Euler's reflection formula (EQN). However this fails to assign a value to the gamma function: the reflection formula only holds for non-integer values of z to avoid division by 0" though I recognise that's getting very clunky
 * Reworded. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The line "The greatest common divisor of the values of a primitive polynomial over ... degree" could be clearer
 * Reworded. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The code in "Computation" section, to my mind, could be formatted better - currently it's in a bi template, I see no reason for it not to be a code block. Granted - it's pseudo code - but to my eyes it's strange to have it in text style like that. Makes article flow less well
 * &lt;syntaxhighlight&gt; only permits monospaced typewriter text. That would make the variables in the code inconsistent in appearance with the same variables in the article text, undesirable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)