Talk:Dirac delta function/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: tb240904 (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria taken from Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria

1. Well-written

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct

no problems found

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Overall:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons-science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

Could do with some more inline citations

(c) it contains no original research

Overall:

3. Broad in its coverage

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Goes into detail but I can't see anything that's obviously unnecessary.

Overall:

4. Neutral

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

no problems

Overall:

5. Stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

several editors working on this with no edit warring

Overall:

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

File:Dirac_distribution_PDF.svg - CC Attribution Share Alike

File:Dirac_function_approximation.gif - Public domain, released by author

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

File:Dirac_distribution_PDF.svg - relevant, with caption.

File:Dirac_function_approximation.gif - relevant, with caption.

Overall:

7. Conclusion

This article may not meet the following points of the good article criteria:

2(b)

Overall: Article is on hold Overall: Article failed 01 October 2010

--tb240904 ^{Talk Contribs} 17:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8. Notes for the Editor

More inline citations

Separate notes and citations
This appears to have been already done. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notes section expands on the information given in the article (i.e. notes) and gives references for individual material (i.e. references). There is then a reference section which gives details on the books referenced. --tb240904 ^{Talk Contribs} 17:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: tb240904 ^{Talk Contribs} 01:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status on the review? No updates on this page in nearly a month. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been out of town, and apparently the only one around with an interest in getting this GA to go through. Give me a week or so, and I will bring it into shape. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This review has been going on for far too long. All editors involved should make every effort to close this review as soon as possible. Also, keep in mind that we have special citation guidelines for math-related articles. Edge3 (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it should be closed one way or the other within the next few days. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left another note on the reviewer's talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as the reviewer is not responding and as I personally don't feel capable of reviewing this. I am going to close it as a failed nomination now. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have renominated, with a timestamp one hour later to allow this keep its place in the queue. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appologise for not responding but my home computer is currently unable to connect to the internet and I was unable to access my user talk page due to my school's firewall. I only had concerns about the references/notes sections but I see the article has been reviewed by another editor and passed. --tb240904 ^{Talk Contribs} 17:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]