GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: SnowFire ( talk · contribs) 07:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Warning: I've only done other 1 GA review before, but since the backlog on this article seemed ridiculous (3 months?!) and I was going to nominate an obscura topic myself soon, I figured I might as well give it a go, someone needs to volunteer eventually. I only have a Bachelor's in Math which really does not make me qualified to understand what is going on here entirely, which is a problem IMHO, but I'm not sure you'll be able to FIND someone else in the field, considering that you seem to be citing yourself (well, assuming the Brian Rushton in the papers is the same as the user here). So - I'll give it a go.
These are great comments; I've gone through and made all the specific changes you mentioned, and tried to add more explanation in several areas, especially the knot complement examples. I expanded and reorganized the applications section, too.
I've removed all references to unpublished material and to an old web-page. I agree that it's better for people to be able to verify the material in the references themselves.
Fixed! I deleted a few images, added more, and tried to make a `multi-image'. I'm concerned that the pictures are too sloppy, so if you have any advice, lay it on me.
A few side questions of my own:
Yes, that's the simplest subdivision rule.
That actually sounds useful, but because it's such a new area, noone's gotten around to it yet. It's completely well-defined, and pretty weird. I guess you could also subdivided infinite dimensional things like the Hilbert cube.
I deleted it because it was a bad example. I drew the C tiles as squares because they are technically quadrilaterals (one of the edges has an extra midpoint). If you think the article needs an example like that one still, I'll replace it with a new one, but I think it looks better without it.
Okay, looks good to me. Just as a warning: I fully expect that some later person might complain that the article is written in too technical a style. That said, I feel confident that you know what you're talking about, and being accurate is more important than being accessible, so I still think it's a pass. Nice work, I wish more grad students dropped their knowledge off for everyone on Wikipedia.
SnowFire (
talk)
04:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: SnowFire ( talk · contribs) 07:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Warning: I've only done other 1 GA review before, but since the backlog on this article seemed ridiculous (3 months?!) and I was going to nominate an obscura topic myself soon, I figured I might as well give it a go, someone needs to volunteer eventually. I only have a Bachelor's in Math which really does not make me qualified to understand what is going on here entirely, which is a problem IMHO, but I'm not sure you'll be able to FIND someone else in the field, considering that you seem to be citing yourself (well, assuming the Brian Rushton in the papers is the same as the user here). So - I'll give it a go.
These are great comments; I've gone through and made all the specific changes you mentioned, and tried to add more explanation in several areas, especially the knot complement examples. I expanded and reorganized the applications section, too.
I've removed all references to unpublished material and to an old web-page. I agree that it's better for people to be able to verify the material in the references themselves.
Fixed! I deleted a few images, added more, and tried to make a `multi-image'. I'm concerned that the pictures are too sloppy, so if you have any advice, lay it on me.
A few side questions of my own:
Yes, that's the simplest subdivision rule.
That actually sounds useful, but because it's such a new area, noone's gotten around to it yet. It's completely well-defined, and pretty weird. I guess you could also subdivided infinite dimensional things like the Hilbert cube.
I deleted it because it was a bad example. I drew the C tiles as squares because they are technically quadrilaterals (one of the edges has an extra midpoint). If you think the article needs an example like that one still, I'll replace it with a new one, but I think it looks better without it.
Okay, looks good to me. Just as a warning: I fully expect that some later person might complain that the article is written in too technical a style. That said, I feel confident that you know what you're talking about, and being accurate is more important than being accessible, so I still think it's a pass. Nice work, I wish more grad students dropped their knowledge off for everyone on Wikipedia.
SnowFire (
talk)
04:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)