Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Vector space/1

Vector space

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Vector_space/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Kept. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This 2008 listing contains significant amounts of uncited material, far beyond what WP:CALC permits, and thus does not meet GA criterion 2b). AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Pinging @Jakob.scholbach and @Ozob who nominated and reviewed the GA for the first time, respectively. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI I notified both on their talk already. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is all easily verifiable basic material. @AirshipJungleman29 why don't you try to add some sources instead of spending all of your time demanding that other people jump through made up hoops. –jacobolus (t) 18:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You are free to jump, or not jump, . You have spoken on the worth of the GA process and on your disinclination to engage with any part of it, so I really cannot see why you should care if other people decide to jump when I ask. Some have, many won't—life goes on.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This article is objectively "good" compared to the typical for Wikipedia articles. Instead of adding a bunch of perfunctory footnotes to arbitrarily chosen introductory textbooks that any curious reader can find for themself with about 1 minute of effort, it would be much more useful for you to find a currently mediocre article and work to get it to higher quality. The way you're doing this now is inducing a bunch of experienced and careful editors to spend a bunch of work on frankly marginal activities that are a relative waste of time; you and they would be doing more good for the Wikipedia project if they picked something (just about anything) else to work on. As another example, it looks like this kind of thing went a substantial distance toward exhausting User:XOR'easter's motivation; that alone is enough damage to more than counterbalance any good that will come of this whole exercise. –jacobolus (t) 18:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me what I like to do with my free time. As it happens, I quite like doing this. I apologise if you find that objectionable, but the consensus of the Wikipedia community is that it is a useful activity. If you feel that is not the consensus, you are free to propose deprecating the GA process at WP:VPR.
 * Incidentally, XOR was not the only one impacted by that GAR; its proposer was also considerably jaded, and stepped away from the site for a few months. I suspect it was more the peculiarities that discussion, rather than the process as a whole, which caused the casualties. I think we can agree in hoping that sort of thing won't happen again. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is not what you are doing with your free time. The problem is that you are imposing unreasonable demands on other editors, asking them to devote a considerable amount of their own time and effort to cleaning up articles that should not be prioritized. If it is so important to you that these articles get cleaned up, then put some skin into the game. Put a few hours or weeks into sourcing each article yourself, before dragging it to GAR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , I prioritize these articles because they have this little green blob that Wikipedia have decided means the article meets a certain set of criteria, and thus I think (perhaps wrongly) that they should meet said criteria. If you are not willing to devote time and effort to making the articles meet the criteria, because you feel they should not be prioritized, simply let it be delisted. If you feel you don't currently have the time to "jump through made up hoops"—perfectly fair, you have done so 115 times already at WP:GAN—you can simply do so later and renominate it there. I hope you understand my reasoning. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are entirely welcome to devote your own time to improving GA articles to meet your standards of what GA articles should be. However, what I see you doing instead is making work for other people by nominating article after article for review, without any evidence of putting effort into cleaning up those articles yourself first. It comes across as selfish and thoughtless. And the net effect has already been to drive authors away from the GAR process, as they were previously driven away from the FAR process, because rather than being something that one can do and move on, it turns into a never-ending time sink of pointless re-reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Some works

 * I'll do the work in the section on "Related topics and properties". It has some awkward list that can still be improved. Such works are in my sandbox. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. But need more sources and some copyedits. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can provide sources for whatever specifically needs citations, but I don't currently see things where I would want to have an additional source. If you want, add a citation needed tag and I'll take care. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The nominator has signalled their intention to work on the article on my talk page. As usual, this reassessment should be left open as long as they intend to work on it, up to a maximum of around three months.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @AirshipJungleman29, @Jakob.scholbach. I have seen your conversation about the improvement of the article on the talk page. Since the main author is busy in real life, I think I can take over temporarily by adding some sources and copyedits to this article. However, some comments may require some clarification from the main author directly. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Jakob.scholbach (talk) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Some see-below links are tagged with clarity. I cannot find where the see-below links are redirected to. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have removed these, they didn't really add any value (even if they would have worked). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Are the types of vectors in the section lists merely? I do think these should be removed, IMO Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we have to write the homogeneous differential solutions in a "linear equation" section? It seems more difficult to comprehend, and are those related? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes they are closely related. The point is that the process of taking a function f and associating to it its derivative (or second derivative etc.) is linear as well, which is why the solution spaces of homogeneous differential equations are vector spaces.
 * I think the discussion there takes so little space that this seems OK to me. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * : please give an update on where specifically you think citations are needed. (I didn't check how many / which ones have been added very recently by and maybe others). The article currently has, IMO, a fair amount of citations overall, and it would be pointless to just add 20 more on generic grounds.  Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, the GA criterion 2b) has been modified so that all content that could be challenged and doesn't fall under WP:BLUESKY needs to be cited inline. See e.g. Descartes' theorem, currently at GAN, for something that does this well. I understand that you could see this as tiresome and/or pointless, but that is what the GA criteria ask for, and it is a lot easier than some articles which come to GAR needing to be entirely rewritten. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @AirshipJungleman29 Correct me if I'm wrong. The GACR2b has been modified, stating that the article has no original research but rather covered with the verifiability in the reliable sources and citation inlines, with the exception that plot summary or explanation do not need to be sourced. However, some of the paragraphs are not plot summaries, or somewhat backgrounds to describe the highly technical topics. Should I added the citation-tag in this case? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, so I reiterate my request to please name a few specific instances of claims / statements you think require additional sources. What is the content that could reasonably be challenged? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , thanks very much for your work on the article so far. I have tagged a few places where inline citations would be helpful; please let me know if you think any of them fall under WP:CALC. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have removed to citation needed tags: in one case I decided to delete the paragraph containing it, because it was out of place there, in the other case (about addition of complex numbers) it was falling under WP:BLUESKY.
 * For the other tags, I did supply references. Let me, however, state quite clearly that this kind of citation needed request is hardly a service to anyone on Wikipedia: it was in these cases a trivial matter to find the required assertion in the subarticles, or to pull up various sources at once. Notice how the references are often to the very first pages of some book, highlighting how strongly these assertions fall under the rubric "not-challengeable".
 * , with all respect to your principles about your work on GAN, I can't refrain from reiterating comments made by and : I suggest we all spend our time on better things. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your work ; for myself, I will continue to work at GAR until the community decides to deprecate the process. It is not all I do on Wikipedia—see today's featured article on the main page—but I find this to be worthwhile in itself. You are welcome to decide whether you have better things to do than provide trivial citations in the future. Thank you also for your cordiality in your responses. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)