Talk:Field (mathematics)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tsirel (talk · contribs) 13:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, this is a math article. Not recreational mathematics. Not a textbook. Not a pearl of popular science. To a reasonable extent, it does contain elements of these three genres.
The article is clearly written and nicely organized. It is factually accurate; no original research; based on reliable sources. It covers broadly the topic without unnecessary digressions. Written from the neutral point of view. Stable, with no ongoing edit wars. With appropriate images. Without obvious copyright violations.
"Ideally, a reviewer will have ... sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained" (quoted from WP:RGA#Assessing the article and providing a review). Indeed, I am a mathematician but not algebraist; my expertise is not sufficient for sections 7.2.1, 9.2, 9.3, 10.4, 11. Additional opinion of an algebraist is welcome. Nevertheless I am bold enough for claiming that this article is good! Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)