Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
For the most part, the article is good article material. The writing is excellent and I did not see any grammar problems throughout. You cover the topic completely and throughly. However, there is a problem, and that is the article is too technical. While it should have a detailed coverage of the mechanics involved in the fast inverse square root, you really have too much information. For one thing, the section on floating points is unnecessary. You would do better to simply link to Wikipedia's article on it. I think that the best way to resolve the problem of technicalness would be to add a detailed picture of how the fast inverse square root works. A picture would really help illustrate and algorithm without being confusing. That's it. I'm putting the article on hold.
Yellowweasel (
talk)
16:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
For the most part, the article is good article material. The writing is excellent and I did not see any grammar problems throughout. You cover the topic completely and throughly. However, there is a problem, and that is the article is too technical. While it should have a detailed coverage of the mechanics involved in the fast inverse square root, you really have too much information. For one thing, the section on floating points is unnecessary. You would do better to simply link to Wikipedia's article on it. I think that the best way to resolve the problem of technicalness would be to add a detailed picture of how the fast inverse square root works. A picture would really help illustrate and algorithm without being confusing. That's it. I'm putting the article on hold.
Yellowweasel (
talk)
16:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)