Talk:Pell's equation/GA1
GA Review
{{Good article tools}}
Reviewer: HeartGlow30797 (talk · contribs) 03:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left" |
| style="vertical-align:top;"
! width="30" | Rate ! width="300"| Attribute ! | Review Comment |
| style="vertical-align:top;"
| colspan="3" | 1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}: {{GATable/item|1a|y| }} {{GATable/item|1b|y| }} |
| style="vertical-align:top;"
| colspan="3" | 2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}: {{GATable/item|2a|y| }} {{GATable/item|2b|y| }} {{GATable/item|2c|y| }} {{GATable/item|2d|y| }} |
| style="vertical-align:top;"
| colspan="3" | 3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}: {{GATable/item|3a|y|Excellent job on this. }} {{GATable/item|3b|y| }} {{GATable/item|4|y| }} {{GATable/item|5|y|Note: Constant updates. }} |
| style="vertical-align:top;"
| colspan="3" | 6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}: {{GATable/item|6a|y|Note: The cover picture is an original work. }} {{GATable/item|6b|y| }} {{GATable/item|7|y|This is my first assessment and if you feel this is wrong, you should request a second opinion. Thank you! }} |
{{GAProgress | prose = y | mos = y | reflayout = y| reliablesources = y| originalresearch = y
| copyvio = y | broadness = y | focus = y | neutral = y | stable = y | freeortaggedpics = y
| picsrelevant = y}}
:Comments: No MOS issues seen with fractions per MOS:FRAC. Further cmts to be made. Eumat114 (Message) 03:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
:Quick comment: {{tq|"compose" triples}} should not be changed to {{tq|produce triples}}, because the sentence is talking about combining two triples to get new ones. Compare the other usages at Composition#Mathematics. XOR'easter (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|HeartGlow30797}} Two points with regards to the comments in 1(a):
:*"Brahmagupta solved many Pell equations with this method; in particular he showed how to obtain solutions..." I'm not like the word "in particular". We could replace it with "...this method by showing how to obtain..." — In fact I think this sentence is better as is;
:*"(sequence A001081 (x) and A001080 (y) in OEIS)." Provide a citation instead of putting it in parentheses. Do the same to all others. — The article is using the OEIS link template: Template:OEIS link, which is best practice.
:And one wrt. point 3(b): rather than recommending shortnening, which is a difficult editorial instruction, I'm inclined to think you should identify a passage that you think would better be in another article and suggest a better home for the material. The point of WP:SUMMARY is not to have deprive readers of technical content, but rather to ensure that the material we have is digestable. (This is a shallow response to the review. I'm going to look over the article more carefully.) — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)