Hello everyone. This article is very close to being nominated for an Article Improvement Drive and I thought it would be good to get a decent peer review done before this. Any and all comments or suggestions for the AID will be appreciated and very helpful. Cheers! -- darkliight [πalk] 11:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I have just had a cursory read through the article and have a few questions that iw ould like to see adressed in the article, please bare with me though as my mathematical knowledge is pretty slim and some of these questions/suggestions maybe daft.
I will go over the article again at some point today and try and give some more specific suggestions from my own laymens perspective.
It looks like a good article that with a little work should be a FAC. I think it ought to be to, given the topic. I have a few comments regarding the article. Here they are:
Okay, that's what I have. As a philosopher, I notice the lack of reference to philosophical work even when problems discussed by philosophers are being described. Generally, I think the article quotes a lot of physicists on these topics, who are often ignorant of substantial discussion that preceeded them. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 22:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello everyone. This article is very close to being nominated for an Article Improvement Drive and I thought it would be good to get a decent peer review done before this. Any and all comments or suggestions for the AID will be appreciated and very helpful. Cheers! -- darkliight [πalk] 11:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I have just had a cursory read through the article and have a few questions that iw ould like to see adressed in the article, please bare with me though as my mathematical knowledge is pretty slim and some of these questions/suggestions maybe daft.
I will go over the article again at some point today and try and give some more specific suggestions from my own laymens perspective.
It looks like a good article that with a little work should be a FAC. I think it ought to be to, given the topic. I have a few comments regarding the article. Here they are:
Okay, that's what I have. As a philosopher, I notice the lack of reference to philosophical work even when problems discussed by philosophers are being described. Generally, I think the article quotes a lot of physicists on these topics, who are often ignorant of substantial discussion that preceeded them. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 22:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)