Talk:Fast inverse square root/GA1

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

For the most part, the article is good article material. The writing is excellent and I did not see any grammar problems throughout. You cover the topic completely and throughly. However, there is a problem, and that is the article is too technical. While it should have a detailed coverage of the mechanics involved in the fast inverse square root, you really have too much information. For one thing, the section on floating points is unnecessary. You would do better to simply link to Wikipedia's article on it. I think that the best way to resolve the problem of technicalness would be to add a detailed picture of how the fast inverse square root works. A picture would really help illustrate and algorithm without being confusing. That's it. I'm putting the article on hold. Yellowweasel (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I'm aware that the article is a little techy and I'm trying to tone that down a bit.  One of the troubles is I don't have a mastery of the subject matter (which might afford me the ability to summarize more conversationally).  Another trouble (sort of) is the nature of the sources.  With the exception of the Beyond3D source, all of the 'reliable' commentary on the bit of code is very technical.  This is partially due to the nature of the sources I excluded--blogs and what-not--and partially due to the nature of the hack itself.  I have one source coming to me through interlibrary loan, but it will probably be highly technical as well.
 * A picture is an interesting idea. I'll try and think of a good way to visualize this and get back to you.
 * The "floating point" section can probably be tweaked but I think it is important to the article as a whole--the relationship of IEEE 754 floating points to integers is what makes this hack work. I'll try and show that in a less remedial way.
 * Hopefully I'll get the bulk of this done in a week. Thanks again for the review. Protonk (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)