Talk:Constant-recursive sequence: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:30, 20 June 2022

Revision as of 22:24, 22 June 2022

Line 81:

=== To do for [[Wikipedia:Content assessment/B-Class criteria|B-class]] ===

# Improve citations

#: {{tq|The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations.}}

#: I think this is the weak point of the article, and indeed of many Wikipedia articles about mathematical concepts. Not only are there important uncited statements in the article (although many of them can be verified by readers with sufficient mathematical background), as far as I can tell, all sources cited in the article are [[wp:primary|primary]]. The one thing that would improve the article most, in my opinion, is more [[wp:secondary source|secondary source]]s.

#:* Every citation should have an exact page if possible, a page range should only be used if the claim(s) cited cannot be verified by reading any single page (and even then it should be as short as possible). I haven't checked whether the article complies with this, I just wanted to mention that. I see that the ''Reachability Problems'' source is used several times, you can provide a separate page number for each of them by using {{tl|sfn}} or {{tl|r}} but given that the page range isn't long it may be more trouble that it's worth.

#:* It would be ideal if there were a source for every definition and every example, to verify that they are notable and therefore relevant to the article. Of particular interest would be a source for the fact that every eventually periodic sequence is constant-recursive, given that it causes a minor headache in [[Constant-recursive sequence#Definition|Definition]]. That said, I don't think it's necessary.

=== Skipped ===

Line 94 ⟶ 88:

=== Done ===

:{{tick}} Pass to improve inline citations

#:: "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations." I think this is the weak point of the article, and indeed of many Wikipedia articles about mathematical concepts. Not only are there important uncited statements in the article (although many of them can be verified by readers with sufficient mathematical background), as far as I can tell, all sources cited in the article are [[wp:primary|primary]]. The one thing that would improve the article most, in my opinion, is more [[wp:secondary source|secondary source]]s.

#::* Every citation should have an exact page if possible, a page range should only be used if the claim(s) cited cannot be verified by reading any single page (and even then it should be as short as possible). I haven't checked whether the article complies with this, I just wanted to mention that. I see that the ''Reachability Problems'' source is used several times, you can provide a separate page number for each of them by using {{tl|sfn}} or {{tl|r}} but given that the page range isn't long it may be more trouble that it's worth.

#::* It would be ideal if there were a source for every definition and every example, to verify that they are notable and therefore relevant to the article. Of particular interest would be a source for the fact that every eventually periodic sequence is constant-recursive, given that it causes a minor headache in [[Constant-recursive sequence#Definition|Definition]]. That said, I don't think it's necessary.

:{{tick}} Pass to improve the writing and make more accessible.

:* The prose is generally good, but it feels too textbook-like to me. Aside from the lead, the article uses a distinctive writing style that is more characteristic of a math textbook than of an encyclopedia.