Talk:Information field theory

Clarification of this rating is requested:

Class C would imply that there are issues with the article. It would be helpful to know which issues have been recognized.

Low priority would imply that the topic has no impact. Given that information field theory is a framework for signal processing, which is technologically very relevant, it would be interesting to know on which criteria this assessment is based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tensslin (talk • contribs) 13:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I assessed it as a class "C" because although the prose is well written, many sections are unreferenced. Of the references in the article, half are referenced to one research group and most of those are primary references, not secondary references, so I don't know how neutral this article is. The lede is a good start, but it doesn't summarize the article. With claims made about and the referencing of primary sources. the history section looks like synthesis to me and really needs secondary reliable sources. In fact the whole article should be based on multiple secondary reliable references. Are there any published review articles for this topic? Arxiv, because it is not peer-reviewed, doesn't really count as published.

The priority grade is about the priority of this article for the mathematics Wikiproject. Statistical field theory has been around forever and has many secondary and tertiary sources, like review articles and whole textbooks devoted to it. IFT by contrast, is fairly new (2010), being primarily promoted by one researcher, Torsten Enßlin, and doesn't yet have the broad impact evidenced by multiple reliable secondary and tertiary sources. As a consequence, while it may be an up and coming approach that will have a big impact in the field, as far as I can tell, it is not there yet in terms of Wikpedia's notion of notability. Hence, I assessed it as low priority for the wikiproject. --Mark viking (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)