Talk:Lie derivative/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 22:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, despite what appears (on a very superficial reading, by a non-expert) to be a well-written description of this subject, it is a long way from meeting Good Article criterion 2, on sourcing. Most of the article has no inline sources (including the entire motivation, definition, coordinate expression, and properties sections), and several book sources that are given as (unfootnoted) general references lack specific section or page numbers to guide readers to the material here that they source. Ideally, every separate claim in the article should have a specific footnote indicating where to find it in the sources, and each paragraph should have at least one footnote. Because it is so far from meeting criterion 2, I think this should be a quick fail, but (as usual) with no prejudice against re-nominating once this issue has been addressed.

Separately from this, and not a reason for a quick fail: I think a subject as geometric as this one could benefit from some illustrations, such as we already have (for instance) at vector field. And, some parts of the article are fearsomely notation-heavy, so additional attention to making the material as accessible as possible (without, of course, oversimplifying it) would be welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]