Talk:Geometric series/GA1

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

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 00:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Although the nominator has been doing extensive work on improving this article, and it's on an important topic that I would like to see reach GA status, I think it is still far from there. The organization of sections is sloppy; for instance, why is the historical note about Euclid listed as an application (WP:GACR 1a)? The formatting of the mathematics is very inconsistent (some in html, others in LaTeX; GACR 1a). Although this is a technical subject, I am not at all convinced that efforts have been made to make it as understandable as possible to as wide an audience as possible (GACR #1a). Much of the material in the lead (such as the definition of a geometric series and the claim that these played important roles in the development of calculus) is not expanded later, and conversely most of the rest of the article is not appropriately summarized in the lead (GACR #1b). Most sections, and most paragraphs within the remaining sections, are unsourced, making it very far from GACR #2. Of the eight footnotes that are given (for an article with 14 subsections!), the first two are duplicates of each other, one is not a reliable source, one (the Abramowitz and Stegun citation) has a broken link, and the formatting is far from consistent (GACR #2). Some sections, such as the proof of convergence, appear to me to go into excessive detail for an encyclopedia article (GACR #3b). The 70-line caption to one of the figures is a serious problem with respect to GACR #6b, and the redundant images of cumulative sums also appear problematic with respect to this criterion. As such, I think this was unready for GA nomination, and meets criterion 1 of WP:GAFAIL. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)