Talk:Factorial/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vogon101 (talk · contribs) 17:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Taking this on as part of the January Drive. Previous reviewer David Eppstein has put in a lot of work to bring this up to standard (thanks!), article does indeed seem much improved!

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.	Well written and clear
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Well set out, appropriate sections, lead is very clear covering main topics at an introductory level. Layout is good, guiding user well
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.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good level of detail - I think pretty well pitched throughout
	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.	Article seems stable - good discussion about improvements and article development in talk page does not seem overly contentious.
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.	Images all appropriately licensed from commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Properties section is enhanced with use of graphs - appropriate and well captioned
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall this article seems to pass the GA criteria to me without too much bother. Have left some suggestions below for mild improvements but I don't think any preclude this from GA status. This is significantly improved from the last nomination - well done all!

Other comments / improvements:

• In Applicatios (computer science) might it be worth explicitly mentioning $O(\log _{2}n)\in O(n\log n)$ given that form would be more commonly known
  • Ok, expanded $\log _{2}n!=n\log _{2}n-O(n)$ (but because this is a lower bound, writing $O(n\log n)$ is incorrect; if written in that form it should be $\Omega (n\log n)$ but I don't want to take the space here to explain Omega and anyway $n\log _{2}n-O(n)$ is more accurate). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah - just feel a computer science user would recognise that better, and absolutely right you don't wanna get into omega/big o/theta etc... will continue review today Vogon101 (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Should the equation for Euler's reflection formula include the not in Z as stated in other sources? I think it might be possible also to state the line before slightly more clearly took me a short second to understand. Perhaps something like "This definition can be extended to the rest of the complex plane by solving Euler's reflection formula (EQN). However this fails to assign a value to the gamma function: the reflection formula only holds for non-integer values of z to avoid division by 0" though I recognise that's getting very clunky

$\Gamma (z)\Gamma (1-z)={\frac {\pi }{\sin \pi z}},\qquad z\not \in \mathbb {Z} .$

• • Reworded. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• The line "The greatest common divisor of the values of a primitive polynomial over ... degree" could be clearer
  • Reworded. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• The code in "Computation" section, to my mind, could be formatted better - currently it's in a bi template, I see no reason for it not to be a code block. Granted - it's pseudo code - but to my eyes it's strange to have it in text style like that. Makes article flow less well
  • <syntaxhighlight> only permits monospaced typewriter text. That would make the variables in the code inconsistent in appearance with the same variables in the article text, undesirable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)