Talk:Constant-recursive sequence: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:03, 18 January 2022

Revision as of 19:46, 26 January 2022

Line 88:

# {{tq|The article is reasonably well-written.}}

#: 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.

#:* The use of the notation <math>s(n)</math> for an element of a sequence rather than the more common <math>s_n</math> can confuse readers, especially given that most (all?) articles linked from this one use the common notation. I propose changing <math>s(n)</math> to <math>s_n</math> and <math>F(n)</math> to <math>F_n</math>.

# {{tq|The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.}}

#: This one needs review from a subject-matter expert.

Line 98 ⟶ 97:

=== Done ===

#:*{{tick}} The use of the notation <math>s(n)</math> for an element of a sequence rather than the more common <math>s_n</math> can confuse readers, especially given that most (all?) articles linked from this one use the common notation. I propose changing <math>s(n)</math> to <math>s_n</math> and <math>F(n)</math> to <math>F_n</math>.

:{{tick}} The article has a defined structure.

:{{tick}} The term "closed under" is used in the article without being wikilinked. Consider linking it in every section where it appears (the lead, [[Constant-recursive sequence#In terms of vector spaces|In terms of vector spaces]] and [[Constant-recursive sequence#Closure properties|Closure properties]]).