Talk:Pell's equation/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HeartGlow30797 (talk · contribs) 03:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Excellent job on this.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Note: Constant updates.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Note: The cover picture is an original work.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is my first assessment and if you feel this is wrong, you should request a second opinion. Thank you!

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments: No MOS issues seen with fractions per MOS:FRAC. Further cmts to be made. Eumat114 (Message) 03:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: "compose" triples should not be changed to produce triples, because the sentence is talking about combining two triples to get new ones. Compare the other usages at Composition#Mathematics. XOR'easter (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HeartGlow30797: Two points with regards to the comments in 1(a):

"Brahmagupta solved many Pell equations with this method; in particular he showed how to obtain solutions..." I'm not like the word "in particular". We could replace it with "...this method by showing how to obtain..." — In fact I think this sentence is better as is;
"(sequence A001081 (x) and A001080 (y) in OEIS)." Provide a citation instead of putting it in parentheses. Do the same to all others. — The article is using the OEIS link template: Template:OEIS link, which is best practice.

And one wrt. point 3(b): rather than recommending shortnening, which is a difficult editorial instruction, I'm inclined to think you should identify a passage that you think would better be in another article and suggest a better home for the material. The point of WP:SUMMARY is not to have deprive readers of technical content, but rather to ensure that the material we have is digestable. (This is a shallow response to the review. I'm going to look over the article more carefully.) — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passed :D HeartGlow ^(talk) 10:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]