Talk:Constant-recursive sequence/GA1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:13, 17 April 2024

Revision as of 10:14, 17 April 2024

Line 12:

Another potential technical GA number theory article, I suppose, may be possible to do quickfailed. There are many problems, some of which may be listed below:

* One such problem is that this article has some unsourced paragraphs: in the definition, equivalent definition, and many more sections (GACR2b). [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 10:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

* In the lead, I can see sequences mathematically written after naming the sequences. Why can't we simply remove them, making the reader understand the abstraction at the beginning? (GACR1b) We already have an examples section containing a list of sequences in the table, though it may discussed further below. Also, I do not understand why you need to repeat defining the topic twice in both the lead and definition sections. [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 10:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Line 22:

* Examples: I do not understand here. Why do you need tables, whereas you also need more subsections to describe every cell in that table? Also, they are unsourced (GACR2b). [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 10:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

* Equivalent definitions: Is it fine to write "<math> \leq d </math>", instead of writing "less than or equal to <math> d </math>", as it may not be helpful for non-mathematical readers (GACR1a).? A "non-homogeneous linear recurrence" phrase may not need to be emphasized in boldface per [[MOS:BOLDTITLE]].

* Equivalent definitions, the images: Many tables may considered as the images with the following captions, a somewhat clever way but aesthetically abysmal after the gap appearance on the right side. Maybe I suggest cropping the formulas and uploading them (or do you have an alternative way, or whatever). [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 10:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Line 28:

* Closed-form characterization: Pay attention to the [[MOS:EXPLAINSYMBOLS]], suggesting that representing the symbols mathematically by using a list of bullets may cause excessive vertical space, which is instead of recommending the usage of prose. [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 10:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

* Generalizations: I recommended you shouldto read [[MOS:BULLETS]], suggesting that the list of bullets start with the sentence case, and some other points described in that manual of style. Also, sources are required here (GACR3b). [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 10:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Others isare suggestedthe comments that ifmay suggest that you could add the parameter "inline" for every math formula in the inline paragraph, avoiding the excessive vertical spaces. Also, in the case of references, does Stanley 2011 have a publisher, as the source is said to be [[WP:RS|reliable]] if there are exist of authors, years published, and the publisher? I do think this quickfailed the article, but I probably need a second opinion, stating this strongly and addadding some more comments, or another user who gives opposition ofto these comments. [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 10:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)