Talk:Quartic reciprocity/GA1

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

Reviewer: H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria. If I feel as though the article meets GA Standards I will promote it, if it does not then I will hold the article for a week pending work.

Lead

 * See WP:LEAD for instructions on what should be in a Lead. To sum up the lead should be a skeletal outline of the article.  The lead for this article is minimal and should be expanded to include all aspects of the article in a summary style.

History

 * Try to place refs at the end of sentences rather than in the middle.
 * Can some of these people be introduced? You have several names here and of course as I novice they mean nothing to me.  Perhaps to a mathematician they carry credibility but perhaps a brief statement of who some of these people are would help the uninitiated.  Especially the ones who are not linked.

Integers

 * One-sentence paragraphs are frowned upon, can the sentence about modulo prime numbers be combined with the paragraph above?
 * Why is bold used so frequently within the writing of the article? I'm not talking about the formuals but also the examples and even terms like quartic, biquadratic residue, etc.

Overall

 * I'm obviously not a mathematician and cannot speak to the veracity of the content. The article has been sitting at GAC since April and I think waiting 3+ months for a review is a travesty.  I reviewed it against the GA Criteria.
 * I am taking the accuracy of the content on good faith since I'm not an expert and this is obviously a very technical article that requires some higher-than-average mathematical knowledge.
 * I cannot pass this article to GA at the present time as I do not feel as though the lead meets MOS criteria.
 * There are some other minor issues like one-sentence paragraphs, and the unnecessary use of bold, which are easily addressed. I will hold the article for a week pending work and/or discussion.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been a week since this review and no work has been done. I will therefore not promote this article.  Please consider my suggestions, if you have questions or comments please talk to me on my talk page.  If the work is done and the article is renominated then let me know and I will happily revisit the review so that you do not have to wait such a long time.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)