Talk:Binary logarithm/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jfhutson (talk · contribs) 21:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it's probably already at GA standards. Here are my comments:

lead formula: specify that x is the binary log of n.
Starting with five examples seems excessive.
italicize the Elements
"On this basis, Michael Stifel has been credited with publishing the first known table of binary logarithms, in 1544." Last comma not needed.
wikilink Jain
rather than listing some logarithmic identities, why not say it obeys all logarithmic identities unless some are particularly relevant here.
you really started to lose me with big O notation. Is there a way to make this more accessible?
likewise with bioinformatics

That'll do for now. I don't know if any of that should hold up the GA. I'll take another look today or tomorrow. My main issue is where the article drifts into specialized subjects without explaining enough for a non-specialist.--JFH (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several duplicate links. Check out this tool. Not really a GA issue though. --JFH (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images: I'm pretty sure the calculator logo qualifies as de minimis, so no problems I can see.
I'm going to go ahead and pass the article with the recommendation that my comments be addressed, but I don't think they rise to the level of GA. The prose is clear and concise even if some of the subject matter is difficult for a non-specialist. --JFH (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I'll definitely be revising this article to take your feedback into account. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]