318:, I prioritize these articles because they have this little green blob that Knowledge have decided means the article meets a certain set of criteria, and thus I think (perhaps wrongly) that they should meet said criteria. If you are not willing to devote time and effort to making the articles meet the criteria, because you feel they should not be prioritized, simply let it be delisted. If you feel you don't currently have the time to "jump through made up hoops"—perfectly fair, you have done so 115 times already at
251:
a currently mediocre article and work to get it to higher quality. The way you're doing this now is inducing a bunch of experienced and careful editors to spend a bunch of work on frankly marginal activities that are a relative waste of time; you and they would be doing more good for the
Knowledge project if they picked something (just about anything) else to work on. As another example, it looks like this kind of thing went a substantial distance toward exhausting
762:; for myself, I will continue to work at GAR until the community decides to deprecate the process. It is not all I do on Knowledge—see today's featured article on the main page—but I find this to be worthwhile in itself. You are welcome to decide whether you have better things to do than provide trivial citations in the future. Thank you also for your cordiality in your responses.
337:
those articles yourself first. It comes across as selfish and thoughtless. And the net effect has already been to drive authors away from the GAR process, as they were previously driven away from the FAR process, because rather than being something that one can do and move on, it turns into a never-ending time sink of pointless re-reviews. —
460:. I have seen your conversation about the improvement of the article on the talk page. Since the main author is busy in real life, I think I can take over temporarily by adding some sources and copyedits to this article. However, some comments may require some clarification from the main author directly.
336:
You are entirely welcome to devote your own time to improving GA articles to meet your standards of what GA articles should be. However, what I see you doing instead is making work for other people by nominating article after article for review, without any evidence of putting effort into cleaning up
250:
This article is objectively "good" compared to the typical for
Knowledge articles. Instead of adding a bunch of perfunctory footnotes to arbitrarily chosen introductory textbooks that any curious reader can find for themself with about 1 minute of effort, it would be much more useful for you to find
296:
The problem is not what you are doing with your free time. The problem is that you are imposing unreasonable demands on other editors, asking them to devote a considerable amount of their own time and effort to cleaning up articles that should not be prioritized. If it is so important to you that
729:
For the other tags, I did supply references. Let me, however, state quite clearly that this kind of citation needed request is hardly a service to anyone on
Knowledge: it was in these cases a trivial matter to find the required assertion in the subarticles, or to pull up various sources at once.
659:
Correct me if I'm wrong. The GACR2b has been modified, stating that the article has no original research but rather covered with the verifiability in the reliable sources and citation inlines, with the exception that plot summary or explanation do not need to be sourced. However, some of the
641:, currently at GAN, for something that does this well. I understand that you could see this as tiresome and/or pointless, but that is what the GA criteria ask for, and it is a lot easier than some articles which come to GAR needing to be entirely rewritten.
578:
Yes they are closely related. The point is that the process of taking a function f and associating to it its derivative (or second derivative etc.) is linear as well, which is why the solution spaces of homogeneous differential equations are vector
282:, and stepped away from the site for a few months. I suspect it was more the peculiarities that discussion, rather than the process as a whole, which caused the casualties. I think we can agree in hoping that sort of thing won't happen again.
721:
I have removed to citation needed tags: in one case I decided to delete the paragraph containing it, because it was out of place there, in the other case (about addition of complex numbers) it was falling under
411:
I can provide sources for whatever specifically needs citations, but I don't currently see things where I would want to have an additional source. If you want, add a citation needed tag and I'll take care.
438:
has signalled their intention to work on the article on my talk page. As usual, this reassessment should be left open as long as they intend to work on it, up to a maximum of around three months.
703:, thanks very much for your work on the article so far. I have tagged a few places where inline citations would be helpful; please let me know if you think any of them fall under
683:
271:, but the consensus of the Knowledge community is that it is a useful activity. If you feel that is not the consensus, you are free to propose deprecating the GA process at
279:
730:
Notice how the references are often to the very first pages of some book, highlighting how strongly these assertions fall under the rubric "not-challengeable".
611:
and maybe others). The article currently has, IMO, a fair amount of citations overall, and it would be pointless to just add 20 more on generic grounds.
564:
Do we have to write the homogeneous differential solutions in a "linear equation" section? It seems more difficult to comprehend, and are those related?
375:
I'll do the work in the section on "Related topics and properties". It has some awkward list that can still be improved. Such works are in my sandbox.
660:
paragraphs are not plot summaries, or somewhat backgrounds to describe the highly technical topics. Should I added the citation-tag in this case?
267:
Thanks for telling me what I like to do with my free time. As it happens, I quite like doing this. I apologise if you find that objectionable
80:
17:
76:
196:
why don't you try to add some sources instead of spending all of your time demanding that other people jump through made up hoops. –
230:"Arguing about whether it ticks off some boxes on a made up checklist (a poor proxy for article quality) is a total waste of time."
61:
297:
these articles get cleaned up, then put some skin into the game. Put a few hours or weeks into sourcing each article yourself,
236:), so I really cannot see why you should care if other people decide to jump when I ask. Some have, many won't—life goes on.
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
791:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
53:
767:
712:
646:
443:
327:
287:
255:'s motivation; that alone is enough damage to more than counterbalance any good that will come of this whole exercise. –
241:
181:
140:
116:
749:
691:
616:
587:
553:
519:
487:
479:
417:
771:
753:
736:, with all respect to your principles about your work on GAN, I can't refrain from reiterating comments made by
716:
695:
669:
650:
620:
591:
573:
557:
543:
523:
509:
491:
469:
447:
421:
402:
384:
346:
331:
310:
291:
262:
245:
203:
185:
171:
144:
120:
342:
306:
763:
733:
708:
675:
656:
642:
600:
453:
439:
323:
283:
237:
193:
177:
136:
112:
500:
Some see-below links are tagged with clarity. I cannot find where the see-below links are redirected to.
159:
101:
607:
you think citations are needed. (I didn't check how many / which ones have been added very recently by
759:
745:
700:
687:
665:
626:
612:
583:
569:
549:
539:
515:
505:
483:
475:
465:
457:
413:
398:
380:
167:
151:
741:
638:
338:
315:
302:
259:
200:
723:
634:
69:
252:
804:
661:
608:
565:
535:
501:
461:
394:
376:
163:
514:
I have removed these, they didn't really add any value (even if they would have worked).
322:—you can simply do so later and renominate it there. I hope you understand my reasoning.
737:
704:
630:
268:
256:
225:
197:
132:
128:
633:
has been modified so that all content that could be challenged and doesn't fall under
798:
319:
272:
127:
This 2008 listing contains significant amounts of uncited material, far beyond what
682:
instances of claims / statements you think require additional sources. What is the
531:
278:
Incidentally, XOR was not the only one impacted by that GAR; its proposer was also
46:
582:
I think the discussion there takes so little space that this seems OK to me.
155:
434:
234:"Let the bureaucrats take away the little green badge if they must"
232:) and on your disinclination to engage with any part of it (
214:
On the worth of the GAR process and participating in it
96:
88:
57:
534:
lists merely? I do think these should be removed, IMO
744:: I suggest we all spend our time on better things.
228:. You have spoken on the worth of the GA process (
393:Done. But need more sources and some copyedits.
160:nominated and reviewed the GA for the first time
678:so I reiterate my request to please name a few
192:This is all easily verifiable basic material. @
8:
684:content that could reasonably be challenged
176:FYI I notified both on their talk already.
209:
530:Are the types of vectors in the section
212:
7:
35:The following discussion is closed.
637:needs to be cited inline. See e.g.
224:You are free to jump, or not jump,
18:Knowledge:Good article reassessment
758:Thank you very much for your work
24:
603:: please give an update on where
787:The discussion above is closed.
131:permits, and thus does not meet
532:Vector space § Related concepts
97:Watch article reassessment page
1:
772:19:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
754:14:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
121:19:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
717:22:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
696:09:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
670:08:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
651:12:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
621:22:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
592:19:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
574:03:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
558:19:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
544:02:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
524:19:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
510:02:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
492:19:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
470:02:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
448:18:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
422:22:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
403:03:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
385:02:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
347:20:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
332:15:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
311:19:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
292:19:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
263:18:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
246:18:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
204:18:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
186:12:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
172:12:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
145:03:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
821:
789:Please do not modify it.
37:Please do not modify it.
764:~~ AirshipJungleman29
709:~~ AirshipJungleman29
643:~~ AirshipJungleman29
440:~~ AirshipJungleman29
324:~~ AirshipJungleman29
301:dragging it to GAR. —
284:~~ AirshipJungleman29
238:~~ AirshipJungleman29
178:~~ AirshipJungleman29
137:~~ AirshipJungleman29
113:~~ AirshipJungleman29
734:AirshipJungleman29
676:AirshipJungleman29
657:AirshipJungleman29
639:Descartes' theorem
601:AirshipJungleman29
454:AirshipJungleman29
280:considerably jaded
194:AirshipJungleman29
102:Most recent review
38:
366:
365:
36:
812:
631:GA criterion 2b)
437:
235:
231:
210:
162:, respectively.
133:GA criterion 2b)
111:
99:
93:
84:
65:
820:
819:
815:
814:
813:
811:
810:
809:
795:
794:
793:
792:
760:Jakob.scholbach
746:Jakob.scholbach
701:Jakob.scholbach
688:Jakob.scholbach
627:Jakob.scholbach
613:Jakob.scholbach
584:Jakob.scholbach
550:Jakob.scholbach
516:Jakob.scholbach
484:Jakob.scholbach
476:Jakob.scholbach
458:Jakob.scholbach
435:Jakob.scholbach
433:
414:Jakob.scholbach
372:
367:
253:User:XOR'easter
233:
229:
215:
152:Jakob.scholbach
106:
95:
74:
51:
45:
41:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
818:
816:
808:
807:
797:
796:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
742:David Eppstein
731:
727:
672:
597:
596:
595:
594:
580:
562:
561:
560:
528:
527:
526:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
432:The nominator
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
406:
405:
388:
387:
371:
368:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
339:David Eppstein
316:David Eppstein
303:David Eppstein
276:
217:
216:
213:
208:
207:
206:
190:
189:
188:
125:
124:
123:
104:
42:
33:
32:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
817:
806:
803:
802:
800:
790:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
756:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
732:
728:
725:
720:
719:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
699:
698:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
671:
667:
663:
658:
654:
653:
652:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
623:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
599:
598:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
576:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
546:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
512:
511:
507:
503:
499:
493:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
472:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
450:
449:
445:
441:
436:
431:
430:
423:
419:
415:
410:
409:
408:
407:
404:
400:
396:
392:
391:
390:
389:
386:
382:
378:
374:
373:
369:
348:
344:
340:
335:
334:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
314:
313:
312:
308:
304:
300:
295:
294:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
274:
270:
266:
265:
264:
261:
258:
254:
249:
248:
247:
243:
239:
227:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
211:
205:
202:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
174:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
148:
147:
146:
142:
138:
134:
130:
122:
118:
114:
109:
105:
103:
98:
92:
91:
87:
82:
78:
73:
72:
68:
63:
59:
55:
50:
49:
44:
43:
40:
29:
26:
19:
788:
679:
605:specifically
604:
298:
126:
107:
89:
85:
71:Article talk
70:
66:
47:
34:
28:Vector space
27:
474:Thank you!
58:visual edit
724:WP:BLUESKY
662:Dedhert.Jr
635:WP:BLUESKY
609:Dedhert.Jr
566:Dedhert.Jr
536:Dedhert.Jr
502:Dedhert.Jr
462:Dedhert.Jr
395:Dedhert.Jr
377:Dedhert.Jr
370:Some works
164:Dedhert.Jr
738:jacobolus
548:I agree!
269:jacobolus
257:jacobolus
226:jacobolus
198:jacobolus
150:Pinging @
799:Category
680:specific
705:WP:CALC
579:spaces.
129:WP:CALC
110:: Kept.
81:history
62:history
48:Article
805:GAR/75
629:, the
320:WP:GAN
299:before
273:WP:VPR
108:Result
154:and @
90:Watch
16:<
768:talk
750:talk
740:and
713:talk
692:talk
674:OK,
666:talk
647:talk
617:talk
588:talk
570:talk
554:talk
540:talk
520:talk
506:talk
488:talk
480:talk
466:talk
444:talk
418:talk
399:talk
381:talk
343:talk
328:talk
307:talk
288:talk
242:talk
182:talk
168:talk
158:who
156:Ozob
141:talk
117:talk
77:edit
54:edit
625:Hi
456:, @
260:(t)
201:(t)
801::
770:)
752:)
715:)
707:.
694:)
686:?
668:)
649:)
619:)
590:)
572:)
556:)
542:)
522:)
508:)
490:)
482:)
468:)
446:)
420:)
401:)
383:)
345:)
330:)
309:)
290:)
244:)
184:)
170:)
143:)
135:.
119:)
100:•
94:•
79:|
60:|
56:|
766:(
748:(
726:.
711:(
690:(
664:(
655:@
645:(
615:(
586:(
568:(
552:(
538:(
518:(
504:(
486:(
478:(
464:(
452:@
442:(
416:(
397:(
379:(
341:(
326:(
305:(
286:(
275:.
240:(
180:(
166:(
139:(
115:(
86:·
83:)
75:(
67:·
64:)
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.