Talk:Number/GA1

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

I come to this as an intelligent but ignorant reader, and it is my habit to comment on the article as I read it the first time from printed copy.

I'll thus expand this review over time. It may take a few days to review it fully. I'll make what I consider minor, uncontroversial copy edits, but feel free to revert them. Other suggestions for copy edits I'll list here.

Reviewer: Si Trew (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I see no comments on the Talk page about making particular exceptions to MoS typography here, so am going with MoS (particularly WP:MOSNUM) unless it is absurd to do so. For example, minus signs should use &amp;minus;, and fractions should be "of the fraction form" (although it does not define what that is, suggesting only that is available).
 * I've made a number of changes for MOS compliance, see the edit summaries.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):   (OR):
 * Very few inline citations. I realise this is a general-purpose article and not a deep mathematical article, but when calling out particular theorems or particular mathematicians, it should be referenced better; I've marked a couple of things in particular as, but I think that really every time a formula etc is attributed or a year of discovery mentioned, there should be an inline reference.
 * I also note that in the later parts of the history we suddenly start getting date-style inline references (1790) for example, yet no reference for what that refers to.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Pleasantly surprised that it covers the basics well without going into too much detail.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The occasional use of flattering or subjective language ("well-known" etc) which I have removed.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Looks fine there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * There's not a single image in the article. I think it could do with some; the articles on rational numbers, complex numbers and so on have images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Holding pending better references and a few images, please. Si Trew (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I feel I have to fail this. There's been no attempt as far as I can see to address my concerns as to citations or use of images. I would have happily given examples of what kind of images to use if there was any attempt to address them, but there has not been. Sadly, I fail on that point.
 * If I am mistaken in my view that this article is intended not for the general reader but for mathematicians, this should go to WP:GAR.
 * It's a pity since except the lack of images, and the references to particular laws etc which I think could have been easily fixed, this should have been an easy GA pass. I fail it with reluctance. Si Trew (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a pity since except the lack of images, and the references to particular laws etc which I think could have been easily fixed, this should have been an easy GA pass. I fail it with reluctance. Si Trew (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Classification of numbers

 * The table was headed "Numbers", after talking about "Number systems", which I've changed it to.
 * The natural numbers are "one, two, three", then they are "0, 1, 2, 3"..., I don't want this to get too technical right here, but it's an important distinction to make early on whether the natural numbers includes zero or not (i.e. it depends.)
 * Done. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this table has been changed in [this edit] to be far more complex. I had assumed the purpose of this article was as an introduction to the concept of number for people who are not primarily mathematicians (other articles it rightly links to go into more detail); this to me just confuses things. For one thing, the para immediately above it calls them "number systems" and the whole point then is to show examples of number systems, not "counting systems" as this table now has it.


 * I haven't been doing GA reviews for long so please forgive me if I am out of order. I prefer to pass articles than fail them, and will work with the editors of the articles to achieve that. I just think that edit makes the article worse not better, to the point it would fail my GA review for being too obscure for the nature of the article (i.e. not focused). Si Trew (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed with this change. (ES: Undo good faith edit, far too large with numerous errors.)


 * I've left I hope a courteous note on the undone editor's talk page, and a welcome. Si Trew (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we could remove that whole table. It adds nothing to the explanations in the following paragraphs, and has potential to confuse the reader. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's up to you, I can see the point of it as kind of an intro, and can also see the point of removing it. Either way is fine by me from the point of view of the GA review. Si Trew (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Real numbers

 * The sentence starting "In abstract algebra, the real numbers are up to isomorphism uniquely characterized", this is confusing to me (I think may be a slip here).
 * Reworded. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

frac

 * WP:MOSMATH strongly suggests that frac not be used. I've converted to frac to a new template fracText which meets with the textual form suggested there.  If someone wants to restore frac, it should probably be discussed at the various MOSs.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine; I'd already commented about the vagueness at WT:MOSNUM, but no contributions from other editors there yet. Si Trew (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)