Talk:Segal–Bargmann space

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 14 November 2013 by reviewer LukeSurl (talk · contribs).

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

accept

I've accepted this after it languished in the queue for over a month. Honestly, I have very little idea what it's on about. However, it looks well referenced, and I don't think its going to get a review from someone with a PhD in maths anytime soon. It seems unfair to let it languish for this reason.

I've got the requiste PhD and general interest in this area. After a quick skim, it looks fairly reasonable to me. Actually, I kind of like it; there's some interesting connections between this and certain topics in number theory that have interested me ... User:Linas (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too Technical?

I read through the article and felt that, despite its quality of content, the article may be too technical for the casual reader. I would suggest that someone who knows more about the topic add a well-explained introduction that can be comprehended by the general Wikipedian audience. This could potentially have a dramatic effect on the article's quality. Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]