Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Euclidean algorithm/archive1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
c to awadewit |
→Euclidean algorithm: reply to C_S |
||
Line 87:
*'''Support'''. I have (inofficially) reviewed the article recently and found it very good (see the article talk page), and think it has even improved since. It is very comprehensive, accessible, provides pictures where useful. I only have one suggestion, which is easy to fix: please consider adding reference(s) for the section "Induction, recursion and infinite descent". I don't agree with Ottava Rima's point above, which is exaggerating verifiability, but that section could do with a brief reference for each of the three methods, just in the sense of a "further reading", if readers are interested in learning more about induction etc. (A reference mentioning these techniques in correlation to the EA would be ideal.) [[User:Jakob.scholbach|Jakob.scholbach]] ([[User talk:Jakob.scholbach|talk]]) 21:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
**Yet, is that not why we have separate articles on [[mathematical induction]], [[recursion]] and [[infinite descent]]? Each of which has a well-written, extensive introduction, and with the except of 'infinite descent' has plentiful references? Is your suggestion because you don't like the look of a paragraph without footnote symbols? I'm genuinely confused by your comment, as we don't have a reference in the article for many other terms either (like [[ideal (ring theory)]]. I would suggest just adding some references to [[infinite descent]] instead. --[[User:C S|C S]] ([[User talk:C S|talk]]) 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
***Oh, that was not my intention. It is not that I a priori don't like paragraphs without footnotes, I just think it is a service to the reader to come up with a reference. For example [[mathematical induction]] does give a number of references, which is good, but assume you don't have the time nor ability to read that article nor scan all the references given there. In that case, an additional reference (in this article here) would be helpful, wouldn't it? Secondly, it is reassuring to have good surrounding articles, but you can't be sure of what happens with them. (You are right, taking that idea seriously would also mean to add references for all other notions like ideals, but I think ideals are far less crucial to the EA than induction etc.) [[User:Jakob.scholbach|Jakob.scholbach]] ([[User talk:Jakob.scholbach|talk]]) 06:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
*''''Leaning to support'''. I haven't looked through the the whole article, but will do so. The "Game of Euclid" thing is not a good addition, but that can be argued (by those who care to) on the article talk page. Other issues discussed above all seem resolved. --[[User:C S|C S]] ([[User talk:C S|talk]]) 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
| |||