Content deleted Content added
comments |
→GA Review: Agreed major restructure is needed. Agree on the notes too, but not a GA fail issue. |
||
Line 64:
: Some more particular points. The proof is given very discursively, with 'Cantor' used throughout. It's his proof with his name but in a mathematical proof there's no need to describe it as if he's doing it, just give the mathematics. It would also be clearer with proper math, i.e. <nowiki><math></nowiki>, formatting. The two 'answering the questions' sections seem very unclear; 'Constructive or non-constructive nature of Cantor's proof of the existence of transcendentals' seems to be mixing the proof up with the diagonal method from the very first quote. 'Why Cantor's article emphasizes the countability of the algebraic numbers' never clearly answers that point. It also mentions a "controversy" but does not say where it's from; such a controversy definitely needs a source or sources.--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 14:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
::I couldn't agree more that the article needs a fundamental restructuring to make it acceptable for GA. Now that another editor has felt the need to make that comment, combined with the nominator's seeming reluctance to do anything drastic, I'm inclined to fail this now and allow it to be improved in slow time. It does not seem productive to work on the minutia when a new review from scratch would be needed after rework, but I'll wait to hear from the nominator first.
::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)
| |||