Content deleted Content added
→GA Review: Agreed major restructure is needed. Agree on the notes too, but not a GA fail issue. |
→GA Review: re the proof |
||
Line 68:
::On the notes, I had noticed this myself, but did not comment as referencing formatting is explicitly not included in the GA criteria. It is an issue however. It makes it very difficult to distinguish what text is actually referenced and what merely has a note attached. Seperating the two things with [[Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: groups|grouped references]] would be very helpful, along with incorporating more of it into the text body.
::I don't entirely agree that the lack of a formal proof is problematic. Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTTEXTBOOK|not a textbook]] and is aimed at a more general audience. That's not to say that a formal proof would not be beneficial, but I can't see any GA criterion that is being run afoul of here. [[User:Spinningspark|<b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b>]] 15:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
:::It does give the proof. The problem is it's so buried in text that it's hard to follow. Reducing it to just the formal mathematical proof, which is in there, would be much clearer. The attribution 'Cantor' is clear from elsewhere, while discussion should also be separate, or at least clearly distinguished. I don't disagree with [[WP:NOTTEXTBOOK]] but where a proof is short and relevant it's often given. Here the proof is the topic of the article and as such is central, while other sections such as on whether it's constructive depend on knowing how the proof works.--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 16:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
| |||