Affine symmetric group is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 8, 2023. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
May 10, 2021. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that juggling patterns can be encoded in terms of a mathematical object called the
affine symmetric group? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Beautiful prose quality and attention to detail, here, with great illustration. I came across this in the GAN queue; even though I studied quite a bit of algebra, I am not in a position to determine whether the article meets the criteria. (I have no experience in combinatorics.) Good work!
The only thing I can offer is to suggest that there be some motivation for calling it rather than another name. ( contains as a subgroup, as you explain later, but not when it is first introduced.) But that may be hard to do in a way that preserves prose quality and flow, so feel free to ignore. Urve ( talk) 23:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
In the "Relationship to the finite symmetric group" section, should there be some mention of the short exact sequence
I am not at home so can't easily browse for citations, but I am sure they exist; I am a bit annoyed that neither paragraph has any at the moment. (Also annoying: the Wikipedia LaTeX implementation seems to lose the correct spacing around \to if you use \overset ? Bah.)-- JBL ( talk) 17:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)The kernel π is by definition the set of affine permutations whose underlying permutation is the identity. The window notations of such affine permutations are of the form , where is an integer vector such that , that is, where . Geometrically, this kernel consists of the translations, that is, the isometries that shift the entire space V without rotating or reflecting it. In an abuse of notation, the symbol Λ is used in this article for all three of these sets (integer vectors in V, affine permutations with underlying permutation the identity, and translations); in all three settings, the natural group operation turns Λ into an abelian group, generated freely by the n − 1 vectors .
The relationship of the preceding paragraph may be expressed by the short exact sequence . Here is the free abelian group with n − 1 generators.
@ JayBeeEll: I believe the citation format isn't consistent within the article, which may spell misfortune for a GA review. Might want to take a look. Horsesizedduck ( talk) 22:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Daniel Case ( talk · contribs) 03:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
OK.
This article has sat unreviewed for six months now, likely because it's about an arcane (to most of us) math topic.
I am not a math person at all, but ... it does not look like we can let this slide any longer. I owe about four reviews, and the type of a person I am, I prefer to take the harder reviews that are always in the top bar (not least because some of my nominations have ended up there; in fact one is there as I type.
So, I will do what I usually do ... print it out, do a light copy edit (to the extent possible for me here) and come back within a week's time with my thoughts based on the article's structure and non-math aspects. I will probably ask at WT:MATH for someone not involved with the article to take a look at the math and let me know how solid it is.
Hey, we should all try to stretch ourselves and push the limit on what we think we can do ... Daniel Case ( talk) 03:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much Daniel Case for starting this review, and for your initial efforts! I will begin addressing some of the citation needed tags soon. However, there were three of them I wanted to discuss: the one at the top of Affine symmetric group#Definitions, the one at the top of Affine symmetric group#Relationship to the finite symmetric group, and the one at the end of Affine symmetric group#Combinatorial definition. The first two are summary sentences of the subsections that follow them -- they are not meant to be free-standing factual claims, but rather navigational aids that briefly give the reader an overview of what is coming. I would have thought that they did not need independent citations (for the same reason that the introductory section of articles does not). (I mean, I suppose that I could copy some lower-occuring citations up to these sentences, if you thought that would be better.) The third example is a sentence about navigating the article -- it tells the reader that we have introduced X and we have introduced Y and where in the article to find the relationship between them. It has no factual content to cite. May I remove it? Or, is there some way I can reword that you think might avoid confusion here? Thanks again, JBL ( talk) 18:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
OK ... I had meant to get this done over the weekend, but I couldn't, and then I had to work at the polls on Tuesday so that delayed this into the later week.
I am glad to see that editors involved are already attending to the requested footnotes. And, since in the process of reviewing I looked at the original draft on Wikiversity and found the peer reviews there, by People Who Know This Stuff, with advanced degrees, actual academic chairs and all, I will defer to that and consider the math substantially correct, beyond the need for any sort of de novo review. I will say that, with the help of the various links, I was able to follow most of the article on a very minimal, conceptual level. The author(s) are to be commended for that.
I also was grateful for well-written prose, with few grammatical errors and no spelling errors. Nor were any facts repeated, or stated fragmentarily. I would like to think that this is coincident with having to write so precisely, and to a great extent in symbols, about such an abstract and complicated subject. If so, it speaks well of mathematics as a field.
That said, I do think there are some other non-math issues besides the insufficient citations (Before I begin, let me just say that I do understand from writing articles about court cases and legal topics the challenges of writing about an abstract subject, often seen as impenetrable by lay readers, where common usage within the field requires both the use of words used nowhere else in English discourse, and some words that take a nonstandard meaning that cannot be easily intuited from context):
It seems even to me that at least one, maybe two, more grafs could be added summarizing the sections of the article past the definitions (Consider that the DYK hook fact mentioned the juggling connection ... this is something that should probably have been mentioned in the intro; some DYK reviewers, in fact, insist that the hook fact be in the intro. I don't think that's always necessary and don't insist on it, but here I think it could and should easily have been done).
As it is, there is a link that could be made, from the third sentence; while we do have at least a couple of articles that seem like they would provide the necessary explanation I didn't myself feel anywhere near qualified to choose the best one.
Saving ... Daniel Case ( talk) 05:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, MOS:YOU explicitly does not rule out this use. But it also suggests that such use should be limited only to situations where that is really the only way to do it, and I'm not sure we have that here. I also note that MOS:MATH#NOWE strongly suggests that the use of pronouns to address the reader should be avoided.
In other words, is it possible to rewrite or recast those sentences such that we don't have to use "one"?
At the very least it would provide a brief respite from the equations and diagrams, especially if there is the potential for it to be illustrated by the inevitable image of some dead old white guy, either painted in academic regalia or photographed in black and white staring intently at the camera.
Saving again ... Daniel Case ( talk) 05:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
So, honestly, I don't know why this was done here. But, and I must speak more boldly than I have otherwise in this review, it must be undone. We can't have two different cite styles within the same article.
And you have no choice of which style to adopt. It must be undone to be consistent with the citations in the first half of the article. I see nothing in WP:HARVREF suggesting that citations can be used this way, and given that per WP:HARVARD we deprecated inline parenthetical refs a little over a year ago, there is no justification for doing things this way. Put them in tags and rewrite or recast the sentences. This is the most essential thing in this punch list after getting all the material properly sourced.
You are correct in that the good article criteria do not explicitly require a consistent citation style throughout the article, but ... I would commend your attention to WP:CITESTYLE, which does say: "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." This to me is an implicit requirement that does not and should not need to be restated (even though, of course, it is in the featured article criteria). Daniel Case ( talk) 19:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
And that's it. I think these issues can reasonably be addressed within the usual week or so, and of course I can extend that time limit if it looks like you're making progress. So, I'm putting the article ...
Happy editing! Daniel Case ( talk) 06:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Daniel Case, thanks very much for this review, both the positive feedback and constructive criticisms. I plan to respond in stages over the next several days. An initial version (with some bolded quotes of your comments and my interspersed responses) is below.
@ Daniel Case: Thank you for your patience. I have completed a first run through at addressing or responding to your comments. I would be interested in your assessment of this progress. Thanks, JBL ( talk) 12:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@ JayBeeEll: Merry Christmas (two days late) and Happy New Year! Holiday greetings aside, I see that you have not been able to do any work on this article in a month. I know you're an academic and this is a busy time of year. Will you be able to resume after the holidays? Daniel Case ( talk) 01:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
These cats can be skinned in different ways.
For the first one, you're leaning on WP:OI. Technically, you'd say you don't need any citation, and in a better world I'd agree with you, and that would be it. But ... since we're not in a better world, I'll recommend instead what I've done for years since someone at a DYK nom accepted OI but insisted I find some way to cite it: <ref>See accompanying diagram</ref> (Or whatever term for the image works best for you).
As for the second one, I think, I typically put such meta references of the "In this article ..." type into {{ efn}} endnotes. I think that would work here, and then the remaining sentence could be joined into the next graf. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Because I'm done with this review right here and right now, that's why. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
JBL, David Eppstein, where does this review stand? It seems clear that Daniel Case has stepped back from reviewing; has David Eppstein taken over, or do we need to find a new reviewer? If the latter is the case, then the nomination should probably be set to request a second opinion, in the hopes that someone who can deal with the arcane mathematics text will be able to take over. (Or perhaps a request should be made at WT:GAN?) Thank you. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I had thought my willingness to take on a GA review in this subject area, especially an article which I remind Dave had languished for months before anyone dared review it, might have been appreciated, and indeed it was, by every other editor who was working on the article.
Yes, I'm not a higher level mathematician, so I relied on the critiques of the math sourcing in the WikiJournal of Science, which seemed to me to be rigorous enough. Again, I think anyone looking for a review of an article that had been languishing at GAN unreviewed for six months should be grateful someone went and reviewed it at all rather than raising side-eyed comments about "the depth of the review".
As for his comments about "checking sourcing by whether there were lots of little blue numbered footnote markers and not by whether the material needed sources and whether the sources were adequate for the material", well, Dave, you need to get out of the math ghetto more. This is exactly the criterion by which GANs in every other subject area are reviewed. I commend to your reading attention this:
It is possible that an editor who is trying to promote an article to GA-class (good article status) might add citations to basic facts such as "...the sky is blue...". This is a good thing, and the fact that the sky is not always blue does benefit from adding a citation. We can add citations for things that are well-known, and the source can contain additional information to benefit our readers.
JBL had been willing to meet me halfway on this, and I was really just that one issue away from ending the review with a promotion when you had to be the angry mastodon and come in and kick everything over, over a relatively minor issue that you could have handled with much more tact... in fact, any tact at all would have been an improvement.
I also cannot reiterate strongly enough how personally I take your insinuation that I only cared about the existence of citations and not their quality. Assessing the quality of the sources here may have been beyond my depth, as I've said (and to put more crudely what I've said a few times already, beggars can't be choosers). In some other GA nominations I've reviewed, I have queried the reliability of the sources. And I'm sure if I looked through other GA noms I've reviewed, I could find more examples.
To make such a remark so recklessly warrants an apology, but I'm not hopeful. Daniel Case ( talk) 08:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
"This is exactly the criterion by which GANs in every other subject area are reviewed."rather than even the most feeble denial? (Also, please do not call me "Dave"; it is not my name.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
In (Lewis et al. 2019), the following formula was provedand
A 2019 paper by Lewis et al. proved the following formula. I see that this has been discussed above, and I think that JBL's desire
to mention, in the text, the authors of particular works, along with pointers to those worksis legitimate. This is a matter of taste; perhaps the most serious thing I can say about it is that having effectively three citation styles — a footnote to
Smith (2005), inline
Smith (2005)and also inline
(Smith 2005)— is too choppy. This particularly sticks out in the subsection
Representation theory and an affine Robinson–Schensted correspondence, where an endnote and both styles of parenthetical all crowd together.
type A root latticeis introduced and used bothers me a bit. If a reader isn't familiar with the classification of root systems and related topics, dropping
type Ain like that (and then including it inconsistently thereafter) might be slightly puzzling. "What makes this lattice 'type A'? Do these things also have lattices of other types? What does the type tell me?" Maybe I'd say something like, "... forms a root lattice, specifically one of type A". Perhaps the text or the figure caption could mention that the triangular lattice is known as A2.
I believe it would be possible to write a more detailed history section on affine Coxeter groups in general, but I am skeptical that there is a lot more to be said about the affine symmetric group in particular.My opinion of this hasn't really changed since then. Thanks again for your comments! -- JBL ( talk) 01:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Do not close a review started by another reviewer without first attempting to contact the first reviewer, but in this case the first reviewer appears to have distanced from the article. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Here I'm going to maintain a (hopefully short) list of things that are true but that I was not able to find sources for on first attempt:
-- JBL ( talk) 11:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Dear JayBeeEll I shall write here my comments rather than on your talk page as for some reason this caused your talk page to crash (it had to do with mathjax re-interpreting old stuff from your talk page for some reason). The article looks very good to me, informative and complete. I have a couple of questions/observations:
More comments to come. Iry-Hor ( talk) 09:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Technical comments for FAC:
More comments to follow. Iry-Hor ( talk) 11:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Affine symmetric group is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 8, 2023. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
May 10, 2021. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that juggling patterns can be encoded in terms of a mathematical object called the
affine symmetric group? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Beautiful prose quality and attention to detail, here, with great illustration. I came across this in the GAN queue; even though I studied quite a bit of algebra, I am not in a position to determine whether the article meets the criteria. (I have no experience in combinatorics.) Good work!
The only thing I can offer is to suggest that there be some motivation for calling it rather than another name. ( contains as a subgroup, as you explain later, but not when it is first introduced.) But that may be hard to do in a way that preserves prose quality and flow, so feel free to ignore. Urve ( talk) 23:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
In the "Relationship to the finite symmetric group" section, should there be some mention of the short exact sequence
I am not at home so can't easily browse for citations, but I am sure they exist; I am a bit annoyed that neither paragraph has any at the moment. (Also annoying: the Wikipedia LaTeX implementation seems to lose the correct spacing around \to if you use \overset ? Bah.)-- JBL ( talk) 17:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)The kernel π is by definition the set of affine permutations whose underlying permutation is the identity. The window notations of such affine permutations are of the form , where is an integer vector such that , that is, where . Geometrically, this kernel consists of the translations, that is, the isometries that shift the entire space V without rotating or reflecting it. In an abuse of notation, the symbol Λ is used in this article for all three of these sets (integer vectors in V, affine permutations with underlying permutation the identity, and translations); in all three settings, the natural group operation turns Λ into an abelian group, generated freely by the n − 1 vectors .
The relationship of the preceding paragraph may be expressed by the short exact sequence . Here is the free abelian group with n − 1 generators.
@ JayBeeEll: I believe the citation format isn't consistent within the article, which may spell misfortune for a GA review. Might want to take a look. Horsesizedduck ( talk) 22:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Daniel Case ( talk · contribs) 03:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
OK.
This article has sat unreviewed for six months now, likely because it's about an arcane (to most of us) math topic.
I am not a math person at all, but ... it does not look like we can let this slide any longer. I owe about four reviews, and the type of a person I am, I prefer to take the harder reviews that are always in the top bar (not least because some of my nominations have ended up there; in fact one is there as I type.
So, I will do what I usually do ... print it out, do a light copy edit (to the extent possible for me here) and come back within a week's time with my thoughts based on the article's structure and non-math aspects. I will probably ask at WT:MATH for someone not involved with the article to take a look at the math and let me know how solid it is.
Hey, we should all try to stretch ourselves and push the limit on what we think we can do ... Daniel Case ( talk) 03:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much Daniel Case for starting this review, and for your initial efforts! I will begin addressing some of the citation needed tags soon. However, there were three of them I wanted to discuss: the one at the top of Affine symmetric group#Definitions, the one at the top of Affine symmetric group#Relationship to the finite symmetric group, and the one at the end of Affine symmetric group#Combinatorial definition. The first two are summary sentences of the subsections that follow them -- they are not meant to be free-standing factual claims, but rather navigational aids that briefly give the reader an overview of what is coming. I would have thought that they did not need independent citations (for the same reason that the introductory section of articles does not). (I mean, I suppose that I could copy some lower-occuring citations up to these sentences, if you thought that would be better.) The third example is a sentence about navigating the article -- it tells the reader that we have introduced X and we have introduced Y and where in the article to find the relationship between them. It has no factual content to cite. May I remove it? Or, is there some way I can reword that you think might avoid confusion here? Thanks again, JBL ( talk) 18:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
OK ... I had meant to get this done over the weekend, but I couldn't, and then I had to work at the polls on Tuesday so that delayed this into the later week.
I am glad to see that editors involved are already attending to the requested footnotes. And, since in the process of reviewing I looked at the original draft on Wikiversity and found the peer reviews there, by People Who Know This Stuff, with advanced degrees, actual academic chairs and all, I will defer to that and consider the math substantially correct, beyond the need for any sort of de novo review. I will say that, with the help of the various links, I was able to follow most of the article on a very minimal, conceptual level. The author(s) are to be commended for that.
I also was grateful for well-written prose, with few grammatical errors and no spelling errors. Nor were any facts repeated, or stated fragmentarily. I would like to think that this is coincident with having to write so precisely, and to a great extent in symbols, about such an abstract and complicated subject. If so, it speaks well of mathematics as a field.
That said, I do think there are some other non-math issues besides the insufficient citations (Before I begin, let me just say that I do understand from writing articles about court cases and legal topics the challenges of writing about an abstract subject, often seen as impenetrable by lay readers, where common usage within the field requires both the use of words used nowhere else in English discourse, and some words that take a nonstandard meaning that cannot be easily intuited from context):
It seems even to me that at least one, maybe two, more grafs could be added summarizing the sections of the article past the definitions (Consider that the DYK hook fact mentioned the juggling connection ... this is something that should probably have been mentioned in the intro; some DYK reviewers, in fact, insist that the hook fact be in the intro. I don't think that's always necessary and don't insist on it, but here I think it could and should easily have been done).
As it is, there is a link that could be made, from the third sentence; while we do have at least a couple of articles that seem like they would provide the necessary explanation I didn't myself feel anywhere near qualified to choose the best one.
Saving ... Daniel Case ( talk) 05:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, MOS:YOU explicitly does not rule out this use. But it also suggests that such use should be limited only to situations where that is really the only way to do it, and I'm not sure we have that here. I also note that MOS:MATH#NOWE strongly suggests that the use of pronouns to address the reader should be avoided.
In other words, is it possible to rewrite or recast those sentences such that we don't have to use "one"?
At the very least it would provide a brief respite from the equations and diagrams, especially if there is the potential for it to be illustrated by the inevitable image of some dead old white guy, either painted in academic regalia or photographed in black and white staring intently at the camera.
Saving again ... Daniel Case ( talk) 05:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
So, honestly, I don't know why this was done here. But, and I must speak more boldly than I have otherwise in this review, it must be undone. We can't have two different cite styles within the same article.
And you have no choice of which style to adopt. It must be undone to be consistent with the citations in the first half of the article. I see nothing in WP:HARVREF suggesting that citations can be used this way, and given that per WP:HARVARD we deprecated inline parenthetical refs a little over a year ago, there is no justification for doing things this way. Put them in tags and rewrite or recast the sentences. This is the most essential thing in this punch list after getting all the material properly sourced.
You are correct in that the good article criteria do not explicitly require a consistent citation style throughout the article, but ... I would commend your attention to WP:CITESTYLE, which does say: "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." This to me is an implicit requirement that does not and should not need to be restated (even though, of course, it is in the featured article criteria). Daniel Case ( talk) 19:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
And that's it. I think these issues can reasonably be addressed within the usual week or so, and of course I can extend that time limit if it looks like you're making progress. So, I'm putting the article ...
Happy editing! Daniel Case ( talk) 06:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Daniel Case, thanks very much for this review, both the positive feedback and constructive criticisms. I plan to respond in stages over the next several days. An initial version (with some bolded quotes of your comments and my interspersed responses) is below.
@ Daniel Case: Thank you for your patience. I have completed a first run through at addressing or responding to your comments. I would be interested in your assessment of this progress. Thanks, JBL ( talk) 12:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@ JayBeeEll: Merry Christmas (two days late) and Happy New Year! Holiday greetings aside, I see that you have not been able to do any work on this article in a month. I know you're an academic and this is a busy time of year. Will you be able to resume after the holidays? Daniel Case ( talk) 01:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
These cats can be skinned in different ways.
For the first one, you're leaning on WP:OI. Technically, you'd say you don't need any citation, and in a better world I'd agree with you, and that would be it. But ... since we're not in a better world, I'll recommend instead what I've done for years since someone at a DYK nom accepted OI but insisted I find some way to cite it: <ref>See accompanying diagram</ref> (Or whatever term for the image works best for you).
As for the second one, I think, I typically put such meta references of the "In this article ..." type into {{ efn}} endnotes. I think that would work here, and then the remaining sentence could be joined into the next graf. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Because I'm done with this review right here and right now, that's why. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
JBL, David Eppstein, where does this review stand? It seems clear that Daniel Case has stepped back from reviewing; has David Eppstein taken over, or do we need to find a new reviewer? If the latter is the case, then the nomination should probably be set to request a second opinion, in the hopes that someone who can deal with the arcane mathematics text will be able to take over. (Or perhaps a request should be made at WT:GAN?) Thank you. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I had thought my willingness to take on a GA review in this subject area, especially an article which I remind Dave had languished for months before anyone dared review it, might have been appreciated, and indeed it was, by every other editor who was working on the article.
Yes, I'm not a higher level mathematician, so I relied on the critiques of the math sourcing in the WikiJournal of Science, which seemed to me to be rigorous enough. Again, I think anyone looking for a review of an article that had been languishing at GAN unreviewed for six months should be grateful someone went and reviewed it at all rather than raising side-eyed comments about "the depth of the review".
As for his comments about "checking sourcing by whether there were lots of little blue numbered footnote markers and not by whether the material needed sources and whether the sources were adequate for the material", well, Dave, you need to get out of the math ghetto more. This is exactly the criterion by which GANs in every other subject area are reviewed. I commend to your reading attention this:
It is possible that an editor who is trying to promote an article to GA-class (good article status) might add citations to basic facts such as "...the sky is blue...". This is a good thing, and the fact that the sky is not always blue does benefit from adding a citation. We can add citations for things that are well-known, and the source can contain additional information to benefit our readers.
JBL had been willing to meet me halfway on this, and I was really just that one issue away from ending the review with a promotion when you had to be the angry mastodon and come in and kick everything over, over a relatively minor issue that you could have handled with much more tact... in fact, any tact at all would have been an improvement.
I also cannot reiterate strongly enough how personally I take your insinuation that I only cared about the existence of citations and not their quality. Assessing the quality of the sources here may have been beyond my depth, as I've said (and to put more crudely what I've said a few times already, beggars can't be choosers). In some other GA nominations I've reviewed, I have queried the reliability of the sources. And I'm sure if I looked through other GA noms I've reviewed, I could find more examples.
To make such a remark so recklessly warrants an apology, but I'm not hopeful. Daniel Case ( talk) 08:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
"This is exactly the criterion by which GANs in every other subject area are reviewed."rather than even the most feeble denial? (Also, please do not call me "Dave"; it is not my name.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
In (Lewis et al. 2019), the following formula was provedand
A 2019 paper by Lewis et al. proved the following formula. I see that this has been discussed above, and I think that JBL's desire
to mention, in the text, the authors of particular works, along with pointers to those worksis legitimate. This is a matter of taste; perhaps the most serious thing I can say about it is that having effectively three citation styles — a footnote to
Smith (2005), inline
Smith (2005)and also inline
(Smith 2005)— is too choppy. This particularly sticks out in the subsection
Representation theory and an affine Robinson–Schensted correspondence, where an endnote and both styles of parenthetical all crowd together.
type A root latticeis introduced and used bothers me a bit. If a reader isn't familiar with the classification of root systems and related topics, dropping
type Ain like that (and then including it inconsistently thereafter) might be slightly puzzling. "What makes this lattice 'type A'? Do these things also have lattices of other types? What does the type tell me?" Maybe I'd say something like, "... forms a root lattice, specifically one of type A". Perhaps the text or the figure caption could mention that the triangular lattice is known as A2.
I believe it would be possible to write a more detailed history section on affine Coxeter groups in general, but I am skeptical that there is a lot more to be said about the affine symmetric group in particular.My opinion of this hasn't really changed since then. Thanks again for your comments! -- JBL ( talk) 01:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Do not close a review started by another reviewer without first attempting to contact the first reviewer, but in this case the first reviewer appears to have distanced from the article. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Here I'm going to maintain a (hopefully short) list of things that are true but that I was not able to find sources for on first attempt:
-- JBL ( talk) 11:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Dear JayBeeEll I shall write here my comments rather than on your talk page as for some reason this caused your talk page to crash (it had to do with mathjax re-interpreting old stuff from your talk page for some reason). The article looks very good to me, informative and complete. I have a couple of questions/observations:
More comments to come. Iry-Hor ( talk) 09:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Technical comments for FAC:
More comments to follow. Iry-Hor ( talk) 11:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)