| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have made few major edits to this page and wants to know whether the article is still in the same quality standard as before.
Thanks, Indranil1993 (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comments from Tonystewart14
- My main recommendation would be to make the article less dependent on the equations and add more text in order to make the article more readable to the average reader. You might want to look at WP:TECHNICAL.
- The word 'we' is used a lot in the article, including phrases like "we have" and "we need". This along with the high number of equations makes it read more like a list of proofs than an encyclopedia article. Per MOS:FIRSTPERSON, you might rephrase some of these; while it says that 'we' is acceptable in the example of "Throughout the proof of this theorem we assume that the function ƒ is uniformly continuous", it suggests a rephrase and gives an example. You might do this for at least some of the instances of 'we' throughout the article.
- At the end of "Example using two particles", you don't need to say that the different algebra "follows in the next sections". This might be good for a textbook, but for a Wikipedia article it isn't needed. You might say something like, "To distinguish between bosonic and fermionic states, Creation and Annihilation operators can be used." (I don't know if that example is scientifically correct, but that would be the format.)
- You only use nine different references, so perhaps you could add more from other scholars.
- Hope this helps. I'm not a physicist, but this should help you improve the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)