Talk:Fibonacci nim/GA1

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

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 08:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Finally, a math GAN that my tiny brain can comprehend. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Since Whinihan & Gaskell don't have articles, could we get a touch of context as to who they are? Even "mathematician" would help orient the unfamiliar reader.
 * I said a little more about Gaskell (who may well be notable as a fellow of AAAS; see his cv at ). I can't find anything more about Whinihan than the affiliation listed in the reference, "Medford Senior High School", which is probably the one in Medford Oregon but might instead be the one in Medford Wisconsin. I can't even tell whether he was a student or teacher at the high school.
 * I notice that the lead contains information that isn't in the body, against MOS:LEAD.
 * Ok, the historical information is now moved out of the lead, and replaced with more summary of other content. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand why footnote 5 is formatted the way it is rather than just being a citation.
 * Replaced with just a citation. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In particular, when the starting pile... I'm pretty sure this sentence is a fragment
 * I don't think so. It has the structure (adverbial clause 1) (adverbial clause 2) ((main clause 1) and (main clause 2)) with (adverbial clause 1) = "In particular", (adverbial clause 2) = "when the starting pile has a Fibonacci number of coins", (main clause 1) = "the Zeckendorf representation consists of that one number" and (main clause 2) = "the quota n − 1 is smaller than that number". But since you found it confusing, I tried splitting it up into shorter sentences. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, this is a surprisingly small amount of comments. IMO this is an esoteric subtopic within an esoteric topic area that is intended to serve an audience that will understand underlying ideas, so I don't think it's necessary or all that useful to have in-text breakdown of mathematical terms. The strategy, which forms the bulk of the article, is explained in a clear enough way that even I can muddle through despite not having any knowledge of the underlying concepts. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All comments addressed; please take another look. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)