Talk:1/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Polyamorph (talk · contribs) 08:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Dedhert.Jr (talk · contribs) 13:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that despite trying to stay away from reviewing this article, the fact article in my opinion does not meet GA criteria standards, which triggers me. I think I have give some comments before this pools on the nominations, but I guess another chance always appears on me. Anyway, reviewing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review this article against the GA criteria. I revised the article inline with your previous suggestions and I look forward to working through any issues that may arise. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polyamorph. Note that the reviewing and spot-checking is checkpointed at here:

"In mathematics" section:

$1n$ and $n1$ are both meant to be the multiplications between a natural number and 1, but the problem is readers may understand what other alternative notation of multiplication between those numbers. I mean, the symbol $\times$ is often used. (GACR1a)
Fixed Polyamorph (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Colman's source does not have specific pages. (GACR2) The Graham source is okay.
Fixed Polyamorph (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some readers may need to know the summary of "Peano axiom", although our article itself Peano axiom is somewhat too technical to understand. We have guidelines that always use secondary sources, instead of using Peano's source, which is a primary source, in this case. What does it mean the preceding numbers in Von Neumann cardinal assignment? Is singleton a jargon and incomprehensible technical meaning? The Fibonacci sequence is unsourced, and a summary of how that sequence is formed is needed. (GACR1a, GACR2)
~~Checking...~~ Polyamorph (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed I have added a secondary source in addition to the primary Peano sources, I have revised the Von Neumann part for clarity, and remove the Fibonacci sequence section since it doesn't even start at 1. Polyamorph (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The latter definition of 0.999... and 1 is exactly the same, but one section from the 0.999... explains those numbers' confusion.
Fixed deleted as this property is not unique to 0.999.... and 1 anyway. Polyamorph (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, it is fine to include it, but there are some other explanation of why some agree that 0.999 = 1, and why some does not agree with it. I think my comment is ambiguity, but oh well. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but after thinking about it, this is true for any decimal X.999....Therefore, I didn't feel it was unique to 1. I have added the wikilink to 0.999... in the See Also section instead. Polyamorph (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot verify Hodges and Hext sources because of restricted access, but nevermind.
Graham's source on page 381 does not cover what is behind the unit interval $[0,1]$ in probability. Blokhintsev's source does not have a publisher. Sung & Smith's source does not have a publisher as well as the page. Per WP:RS (GACR2b)
~~Checking...~~ Polyamorph (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham's Concrete Mechanics 2nd Edition, page 381, reads:
"The probability Pr(ω) must be a nonnegative real number, and the condition $\sum _{\omega }\epsilon \Omega Pr(\omega )=1$ (8.1) must hold in every discrete probability space. Thus, each value Pr(ω) must lie in the interval [0 . . 1].
I will update the source. Polyamorph (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed added the missing information and removed the redundant Sung & Smith source. Polyamorph (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rest three skinny facts should be merged, in my opinion, or you could just expand it by explaining the technicality. For example, can you describe how is Benford's law works appearing 1 frequently? No format on CS1 or CS2 (depending on the most usage of one of them in this article) in La Vallée Poussin's source and too technical (or confusing journals??? publishers???) Pintz's source is fine. Miller's source on page 4 is okay. You might need to summarize what the Tamagawa number is (alongside the jargon, whenever possible), since the article itself is somewhat technical and most readers cannot understand how it works. (GACR1a, GACR2b)
~~Checking...~~ Polyamorph (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed The La Vallée Poussin source didn't seem relevant, not sure why it was cited. I have expanded the explanations for Benford's law and Tamagawa number (as much as is possible). Polyamorph (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the primality section should be merged instead unless there are some huge topics about it. The primality is somewhat complete. Our article Prime number tells us what happens if 1 is considered to be a prime number, and what are the impacts on algorithm as in sieve of Eratosthenes or divisor function. (GACR3a)
Fixed content mostly merged to Prime number, a single sentence kept on primality of one in the first paragraph of the In mathematics section. Polyamorph (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tables on multiplication, division, and exponentiation are not very helpful at all, and they violate two guidelines WP:NOTGALLERY and MOS:EMBED, although this idea appeared on the geometrical images. Caldwell & Xiong's source is fine and Caldwell et. al.'s source is fine. Riesel and Conway & Guy's [1][2] sources state about 1 considered as a prime in 1956 article? (GACR2a)
Fixed tables removed. Failed to verify the information attributed to Riesel (source removed). Corrected the page number for Conway and Guy.Polyamorph (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a word: (this has to be the part of WP:LING, I suppose). But the problem is we do have One (word) for linguistic study. Do you need to maintain this section here? If that's the case, I will just continue to review it

Online Etymology source: okay
Hurford source: okay
Huddleston source: okay, but p. 140 does not mention the word "one" as a gender-neutral pronoun. Also, please avoid WP:SOB whenever possible.
~~Checking...~~ page 140 mentions "one" only in passing as a less prototypical member of the personal pronoun category. Will look for another source. Note this source was added by the book's author, I should have checked it more closely when they did so. Polyamorph (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed changed reference to Huddleston & Pulham 2002, which discusses its gender neutrality. Polyamorph (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conway & Guy's source on page 3 [3] and 4 [4]: okay
Are you sure various glyphs suit the linguistics section? It suits me more in symbols and representations to me. And the Crystal's source does not have a page.
Fixed moved to the symbols and representation section, and updated the source page. Polyamorph (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols and representation:

"Sumerian decimal-sexagesimal", "Assyro-Babylonian Semitic": Again, is it possible to avoid the adjacents links per WP:SOB? The source of Conway & Guy [5] is fine, unless it does not say anything about decimal-sexagesimal by Sumerian. Did I miss something? Chrisomalis' source is fine. Acharya source is fine. Radford, Schubring & Seeber's source are more likely to be the editors rather than the authors, and "Semiotics in Mathematics Education: Epistemology, History, Classroom, and Culture" is the title's source. I think you meant the Schubring is the author of the so-called contribution "Processes of Algebraization" | contribution = [6]
~~Checking...~~ Polyamorph (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed WP:SOB. The Conway & Guy source page 17 states
Perhaps the earliest recorded occurrences of numerals are on some Sumerian clay tablets dating from the first half of the third millennium B.C. The Sumerian system was later taken over by the Babylonians.
Later on the same page it is stated
Their notation for numbers used the base 60, with individual symbols, l and <, for 1 and 10
. While the source doesn't use the term decimal-sexagesimal, that is what is being described. I think you're right, Radford, Schubring, and Seeger are the editors of this particular volume, but looking up the bibliographic information they are listed as authors. As far as I can see, the title is correct. The series is |series=Semiotic Perspectives in the Teaching and Learning of Math Series and the series editor is Gabriele Kaiser (added to the citation). I've added the contribution to the source. Marking this as fixed but please edit if you think it is still incorrect. Polyamorph (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to break the modern typefaces paragraph?
Fixed Polyamorph (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen 2007 p.93 is fine. The typography.com's source is something that I might be need to think of whether it is reliable or not, but I don't mind it. Post Haste Telegraph Company's source is fine, Polt source [7] is fine. Guastella's source is fine [8]. The Kohler's source has no page. The three German sources are fine. The Huber & Headrick 1999 source says German writes 7 with stroke to avoid confusion of 1, but the article says other countries.
Fixed missing page numbers added to sources. Clarify the German stroke. Polyamorph (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I can say that "In technology", "In science", and "In philosophy" can be wrapped up into "Other applications". The "In technology" is somewhat casual for me to hear, but I would think "In computer science" may be suitable, although I have to think again that lambda calculus may be used in mathematical logic for computing:

Fixed Moved these sections into "In other fields" Polyamorph (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In technology: Woodford 2006 source is fine, but sadly I cannot access Godbole 2002's source. In fact, I don't see anything that $1fx=fx$ in Hindley & Seldin 2008. This probably has to do with WP:CALC, isn't it?
Comment: It is indeed WP:CALC. It's the same as equation 2 in Hindley & Seldin 2008 page 48. $f(x)^{n}$ is simply $f(x)$ when $n=1$ .Polyamorph (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In science: Do you have better source than the ISO? The Glick et. al.'s source is fine [9], and the McWeeny's source is also fine [10]. The only problem is the chemistry section, as it violates WP:NUM/NOT.
Fixed replaced the ISO source. Polyamorph (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I previously removed the content that is in the chemistry section, per WP:NUM/NOT. However, this was opposed (see Talk:1#He_who_Like_Beer) and I reinstated it. So this is a compromise. If this is absolutely critical for passing the GA review, then I will remove it. But given wikipedia is a collaborative project and several users have expressed a preference for this content, then I suggest we keep it, especially given that WP:NUM/G is non-binding guidance only. Also note, atomic number is listed in the good article 69 (number) (as well other info that might be considered to fail WP:NUM/NOT, but are cited and considered interesting enough to keep). Polyamorph (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In philosophy and religion: The Britannica's source is fine. Plotinus and The One are duplicated wikilinks. Olson source has no specific page.
Fixed replaced Olson source. Polyamorph (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One question before heading to the closing on this review (and maybe possibly to the second reading) saying that this article is neutral and stable: Can see-also section wikilinks be used to expand the rest of the article's body? That's all for today. Happy improving. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Dedhert.Jr: Thanks again for your careful review. I have completed all revisions, hopefully to your satisfaction (please let me know if I missed anything). The only change I did not implement was for the content in the Chemistry section, per my comment at the relevant position in your review. I look forward to your response. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it looks like an improvement to me. @Polyamorph:, I have made several edits after I review it; hope you don't mind, or you have other reasons to object to it. Before I pass this, is there any reason to add subsections in the section of "other fields"? I understand that you are intended to distinguish the usage of number 1 in various fields. I have seen no manual of styles restricting the usage of subsections. Still, my opinion about this is they are intended to break many paragraphs that contain similar and relatable topics (for example, more than two paragraphs talk about the X-topic, whereas the rest are Y-topic, so it is reasonable to break them by using subsections; if you cannot understand this dummy example, look at the example of one of GA maths: Ordered Bell number#Applications). In this case, merging them into one section is a good option; if you have other reasons to keep them, expanding—one of those—subsections would be required. Also, do you have to keep those templates of Wikiquote, Wikimedia, and others in the see-also section? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Thanks @Dedhert.Jr: I've removed the ugly Wikiquote and other Wikimedia templates. I also merged the content in the "Other Fields" section. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.