Wikipedia:Featured article review/Euclidean algorithm/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

Euclidean algorithm

 * Notified: WillowW, WikiProject Mathematics

Review section
One section of the article has been tagged for verifiability for over four and a half years, and many other paragraphs and sentences are without cites. The original nominator said this algorithm is taught to 10-year-old children, in which case the article ought to be easier to understand but much of it is impenetrable. DrKiernan (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. There was one citation needed tag, that I supplied an easy reference for.  WP:SCICITE does not require that every sentence or paragraph have a citation.  From that guideline "[I]n sections or articles that present well-known and uncontroversial information – information that is readily available in most common and obvious books on the subject – it is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources (and possibly a more accessible source, if one is available) in such a way as to indicate that these sources can be checked to verify statements for which no other in-line citation is provided."  The original nominator stated that the Euclidean algorithm in its simplest form is understandable by children, not that the general algorithm is.  The algorithm has been generalized and studied in many different situations.  A comprehensive encyclopedia article should include this kind of information, regardless of whether it is understandable by 10-year old children.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@DrKiernan, which parts are impenetrable? Let me suggest that the lead section can be aimed, not so much at 10 year olds per se, but, instead, non-experts who might actually be curious. Consider the most likely reader, then, perhaps the lead section could benefit from the attention of editors. My thoughts, Grandma (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I won't be contributing further either here or elsewhere. I don't appreciate being called anti-intellectual or idiotic and am not willing to invite further abuse. DrKiernan (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Understandable. We need to try to keep the rhetoric conducive to teamwork. @DrKiernan, if possible, please recognize that your initiative is appreciated by Grandma (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's do try to keep the rhetoric down to get through this as effortlessly as possible; the kind of commentary directed at needs to stop.  The article is most definitely deficient, and pretending it is not will not get the article where it needs to go.  Here is the version of the article that passed FAC three years ago.  I was FAC delegate then, and I didn't promote the article FA, but I didn't have problems with it then, or I would have recused and Opposed (since I was a math undergrad and have a graduate degree in a very mathematical field of engineering; I shouldn't even have to say this, but seeing the reaction to DrKiernan indicates it may be necessary.)  At least the lead is written in English in the version that passed FAC. Here is the version of the current article I am reviewing.  Lest people who are not comfortable with math feel that they might not be reading English-- they're right.  The second paragraph of the lead (which must be digestible to a general audience) is not written in grammatical English.  Let me be clear:  this is not a math problem-- this is an English problem.
 * So, considering that the article has been quite substantially rewritten since it passed FAC, and the version that passed FAC was decipherable at least in English, I suggest that the first step towards preserving Featured Status here is a revert to that version. Making math digestible is not rocket science: textbooks and other websites do it all the time-- we can, too. There is potentially another problem:  the second para listed above looks like it could only have come from a very bad Google translate from another language.  And if that is the case, that could be a copyvio.  Revert the article; it has not been shepharded by people versed in making the English in the article accessible, and it may contain Google translate copyvio.  Stop claiming that the math is over the head of people reviewing (in this case, it is not and should not be); that has been a frequent argument seen in every math FAC or FAR, and persisting in that line of thinking will only prolong this FAR.  Few editors are likely to be willing to weigh in if attitudes that this topic cannot be made decipherable (or at least sections of it) prevail.  The article should be reverted.  If it's not, move to FARC for declarations of Keep or Delist, and I'll be declaring Delist. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So, considering that the article has been quite substantially rewritten since it passed FAC, and the version that passed FAC was decipherable at least in English, I suggest that the first step towards preserving Featured Status here is a revert to that version. Making math digestible is not rocket science: textbooks and other websites do it all the time-- we can, too. There is potentially another problem:  the second para listed above looks like it could only have come from a very bad Google translate from another language.  And if that is the case, that could be a copyvio.  Revert the article; it has not been shepharded by people versed in making the English in the article accessible, and it may contain Google translate copyvio.  Stop claiming that the math is over the head of people reviewing (in this case, it is not and should not be); that has been a frequent argument seen in every math FAC or FAR, and persisting in that line of thinking will only prolong this FAR.  Few editors are likely to be willing to weigh in if attitudes that this topic cannot be made decipherable (or at least sections of it) prevail.  The article should be reverted.  If it's not, move to FARC for declarations of Keep or Delist, and I'll be declaring Delist. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with that proposal. The original FA version of the article was much better than what is there now.  Perhaps a revert to this version, followed by discussion of what to restore.  However, I hasten also to point out that the issues you are now mentioning have actually been committed to the article in response to this FAR.  None of the above problematic text appears in the version that DrKiernan initially complained about, which was substantially similar to the original FAR revision (apart from the lead, which I think should be rolled back to the original FAC lead).  But if going back to the pre-FAR version is all it takes to have it re-listed, what was the point of subjecting it to an FAR (for silly reasons, too) in the first place?   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell, the editor who introduced the problematic text has the second highest edit count on the article (since the FA nominator left), so that could account for part of the problem. If Google translate is being used, we could have copyvio issues.  Yes, going back to the original FA version, and editing to update from there would be the fastest route to assuring this article can retain its Featured status.  I suggest dropping the persistence that the FAR was "silly"; FARs have to be noticed on article talk first, and only if nothing improves does the article come here.  And historically, on every Math FAC or FAR I've participated in or observed, the math editors have made claims like those aimed at DrK, so let's drop the rhetoric, and get busy.  Reverting the article, and cleaning up from there, is the best way forward.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That doesn't really answer my question, but ok. We can go back to the pre-FAR revision, and someone can review it, hopefully with comments that are actually helpful.  But in light of this discussion, I won't hold my breath.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Which question is unanswered ? (My apologies for whatever I missed: I have the flu.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with above comments that put the quality of English writing above the quality of the content, with above obviously wrong threats of copyvio, and with 's revert on the aticle page. I have opened a Request for comments on the article talk page. D.Lazard (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out—and I hope you're not offended—that while your English is very good, it does not sound like the English of a native speaker.


 * @: This user is an expert in the subject; some of his publications would in fact be reliable sources for this article. But, as his user page says, his mother tongue is French, not English.  There is no Google translate involved.  Ozob (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thankx, Ozob-- good to know. And opening a separate RFC is process wonkery, because basically a FAR is an RFC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please, be WP:CIVIL and do not use slang (wonkery), which I do not understand clearly, and I consider as name-calling. Maybe "basically a FAR is an RFC", but I guess that only few of the 188 watchers of this article are aware of this discussion. Reciprocally, it seems that few of the editors participating to this discussion have read the discussions on the talk page that have been posted since the opening of this review. Moreover, the discussion on the article is split in three different pages, this one, article's talk page and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Therefore the discussion on the best version for starting improvements must be centralized where all interested people could find it easily, and it is not here. D.Lazard (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Watchers of the article will have seen the FAR posting on the talk page, and this is the central place for discussing whether the article will retain featured status. That doesn't preclude discussions of improvements happening elsewhere, but the decision on FA status is made on this page.  While discussion at the Math Project page is interesting,that page is not where FA status is determined. I'm sorry you have a problem with English slang, but "process wonkery" is not uncivil.  I don't believe the revert was to the Featured version: the featured version is this.  The revert was to a version pre-FAR, which is not what I suggested. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've just looked at some sample sections, and have found (niggling) prose and MOS cleanup needed (See my sample edits). More significantly, citation cleanup and consistency is needed. Examples:  Move to FARC, to keep the process moving forward, and to allow more time for improvements, followed by evaluation of prose. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reynaud A.-A.-L. (1811). Traité d'arithmétique à l'usage des élèves qui se destinent à l'École Polytechnique. Courcier. Incomplete
 * Some short citations have punctuation, others don't.
 * See also Werke, 2:67–148. incomplete.
 * There are sources listed in Bibliography that aren't used in Citations.
 * Some section heading stuff (see my sample edits).
 * Wikilinking check needed (see my sample edits).
 * Some of the short citations link to the Bibliography, others don't.
 * Why are there five items in "See also"? That is, when an article is FA-quality and comprehensive, typically all items worthy of mention in See also will have been worked into the article.  If they haven't been worked into the text, is the article comprehensive?  Or should they be removed from See also?
 * Some inconsistency on final punctuation on equations that do or don't end a sentence.
 * Can't read this character: A set of elements under two binary operations, + and ·,
 * Please review throughout for the difference between WP:EMDASH, WP:ENDASH, hyphen and minus sign (see my sample edits).
 * Punctuation on captions needs to be checked (full sentences should have final stop, fragments don't).
 * "Visualization" section, please review colors for WP:ACCESS.
 * Please review the "Generalizations" section for citations.
 * I've handled some of the wikilinking issues (changed wikilinks that unnecessarily went through a redirect) and some of the see-also issues (removed three see-alsos that were already in the main text). I also removed the whole "Generalizations" section (and the lead section sentence summarizing it), as Lazard had done earlier, as being too far off-topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, struck some. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also handled: consistency of punctuation at ends of short references (currently: no periods on any of them) and of author name formatting, linking of short references to the bibliography, checking that those links all work, and removing bibliography items not used in footnotes. I'm not sure what problem you see with Reynaud (we have title, year, and publisher for this book; what else do you want) or Gauss ("Werke" is just German for "works", I.e. Gauss's collected works). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Courcier, then, is presumably a publisher? Location?  And page number?  Generalizations is still there (you indicated earlier it was removed).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what I removed in this edit was "Generalizations to other mathematical structures". The other "Generalizations" section is still there, so your request to review it for citations is still valid. As for Reynaud, I found more detail about that reference in Shallit 1994; I haven't found the original text of that edition of Reynaud to check against, so I included an "As cited by Shallit" note at the end of the Reynaud reference. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay; I lost internet contact for a few days over Christmas and this dropped off my watchlist. I've checked the caption punctuation and the different kinds of dashes. (We don't have any ems, but there are hyphens, en-dashes, and minus signs, all of which appear to be correctly distinguished from each other.) —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Captions and dashes are in good shape. Reference formatting looks good except there is a bare reference to http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PortersConstant.html. The Generalizations section seems to be lacking citations still, though. Maralia (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I fixed the bare url. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Concerns raised in the review section mostly dealt with prose, sourcing, and formatting/consistency. Please remember to keep commentary focused on the Featured article criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My outstanding concerns from the FAR section are: Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Visualization" section, please review colors for WP:ACCESS.
 * Please review the "Generalizations" section for citations.
 * Re color accessibility: all images are still clear and understandable when my monitor is switched to grayscale. However, the caption for the illustration in the "Algorithmic efficiency" section no longer makes sense in this view. The same is also true for the "worked example" animation with the squares of different colors Any suggestions for making these captions more accessible? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * is the accessibility guru; perhaps he has advice. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But I'm totally blind, so I can't help you guys here. Graham 87 08:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking, Graham! David, does WP:ACCESS give you any guidance?  There's a lot going on in this article with color, so I'm concerned. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I updated the two problematic captions, in one case to avoid color terms altogether and in the other to augment them with light/dark descriptions that I think should work regardless of color. As far as I can see the only other significant use of color is in the first illustration in the article, but in that case it is not mentioned in the caption, and is only used to distinguish different stages of the algorithm, so readers only need to be able to distinguish the different colors from each other, not to tell which one has which name. As I said earlier, I checked this in a monochrome view and it was still distinguishable, so I think it should be ok. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Re references: I just added 11 more, mostly to the Generalizations section. The "Euclidean domains" and "Noncommutative rings" subsections still need work in this regard, but I think the rest of the section is better now. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, those last two sections are now better sourced as well. Are there any remaining issues to address? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work! I will look it over in the next few days; pinging .  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone still here? Should this be moved back to the main FAR page or closed? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies, ; the ball has been in my court for two weeks, but I got extremely busy IRL all of a sudden. I should be able to review the article this weekend (unless someone else gets there first).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks good now!  Just a note:  please try to avoid the use of "we", and I hope the math project will continue to strive for accessbility in language.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - looks as though the concerns stated here have been addressed. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.