Talk:Order theory/GA1

GA Reassessment
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Order theory/GA1. This discussion is now closed. Please do not edit the review page.

I am reassessing the GA status of this article because I do not believe it currently meets the Good article criteria. I raised concerns already in September last year: in short, the lead section and history section need work, and the article is inadequately cited. I will expand on these concerns in the template below. As essentially nothing has changed since last September, and the article is still a long way from meeting the criteria, I very much doubt a prolonged discussion would be of benefit, so I intend to delist within a few days.

Despite the criticism, I appreciate the work that has gone into the article, and it has many fine qualities, not least the enthusiasm for the subject that the article conveys. The fact that it does not meet the good article criteria does not mean it is not a very useful contribution to the encyclopedia! I wish any editors who want to continue to improve the article all the best. Geometry guy 19:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please add any comments on the reassessment below, not in the table. I will update the table accordingly, either striking or removing comments if necessary. Meanwhile, here is a random selection of sentences from the article with problems. That's all for now. Geometry guy 21:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "For a quick lookup of order-theoretic terms, there is also an order theory glossary. A list of order topics collects the various articles in the vicinity of order theory." With some rewriting, this might survive as a hatnote.
 * "Orders appear everywhere - at least as far as mathematics and related areas, such as computer science, are concerned. The first order that one typically meets in primary school mathematical education is the order ≤ of natural numbers... Indeed the idea of being greater or smaller than another number is one of the basic intuitions of number systems in general..." Opinion, fact dressed up as opinion, and confusion: are we talking strict or non-strict order here?
 * "Whenever both contain some elements that are not in the other, the two sets are not related by subset-inclusion." Ugly, opaque prose.
 * "This more abstract approach makes much sense, because one can derive numerous theorems in the general setting, without focusing on the details of any particular order. These insights can then be readily transferred to many concrete applications." Opinion.
 * "While many classical orders are linear..." What is a "classical order"?
 * "Many advanced properties of posets are mainly interesting for non-linear orders." According to whom?
 * "Hasse diagrams can visually represent the elements and relations of a partial ordering." There has to be a better way to say this!
 * "An instructive exercise is to draw the Hasse diagram for the set of natural numbers that are smaller than or equal to 13, ordered by | (the divides relation)." Textbook style.
 * "This is important and useful, since one obtains two theorems for the price of one." A bargain. And an opinion.
 * "However, quite often one can obtain an intuition related to diagrams of a similar kind." Demonstrates the deep insight of the writer; adds nothing for the reader.
 * "For example, 1 is the least element of the positive integers and the empty set is the least set under the subset order." Which partial order on the positive integers? (Okay, I know it is true for both of the obvious ones.)
 * "The notation 0 is frequently found for the least element, even when no numbers are concerned." Poor prose, unnecessary opinion.
 * "Since the symmetry of all concepts, this operation preserves the theorems of partial orders." Grammatically incorrect.
 * "Monotone Galois connections can be viewed as a generalization of order-isomorphisms, since they constitute of a pair of two functions in converse directions, which are "not quite" inverse to each other, but that still have close relationships." More insight that adds nothing for the reader who does not already share it.
 * "Basic types of special orders have already been given in form of total orders.". Once other concerns are addressed, copyediting by a fluent English speaker would be helpful.
 * "More complicated lower subsets are ideals, which have the additional property that each two of their elements have an upper bound within the ideal. " As above.
 * "Although most mathematical areas use orders in one or the other way, there are also a few theories that have relationships which go far beyond mere application." Wears multiple opinions as badges on its sleeve.
 * "As explained before, orders are ubiquitous in mathematics. However, earliest explicit mentionings of partial orders are probably to be found not before the 19th century. In this context the works of George Boole are of great importance. Moreover, works of Charles S. Peirce, Richard Dedekind, and Ernst Schröder also consider concepts of order theory. Certainly, there are others to be named in this context and surely there exists more detailed material on the history of order theory." The entire content of the history section apart from the only cited sentence: poor prose, poor style.


 * With no sign of activity, I will now delist the article. I hope that editors will return to the article in the near future, as there is lots of good material here to build on, and hope that the above review will help them when they do. Geometry guy 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)