Talk:Constant-recursive sequence: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:17, 18 June 2022

Revision as of 07:30, 20 June 2022

Line 87:

#:* 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.

# Pass to improve the writing and make more accessible

#: {{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.

#: {{tq|The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.}}

#: I think the [[wp:write one level down|write one level down]] rule is the best way to assess this, but I don't know at which level this subject is typically studied. If [[graduate school]], I'd say it passes. If [[undergraduate education#United States system|undergraduate]], it fails.

=== Skipped (unclear, disputed, or not actionable) ===

:{{Yellow tick}} "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." This one needs review from a subject-matter expert.

:{{Yellow tick}} "The article contains supporting materials where appropriate." I think a video illustrating the concept would be helpful, but the article ought to pass this criterion even without one.

Line 99 ⟶ 94:

=== Done ===

#:{{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.

#:* "The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way." I think the [[wp:write one level down|write one level down]] rule is the best way to assess this, but I don't know at which level this subject is typically studied. If [[graduate school]], I'd say it passes. If [[undergraduate education#United States system|undergraduate]], it fails.

:{{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.