Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Derivative/1

Derivative

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 • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Massive effort from Dedhert.Jr and XOR'easter to bring this article up to scratch. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant portions, including whole sections and subsections, of this 2007 listing are missing inline citations; the article thus does not meet GA criterion 2b). If someone has access to the books of the biblography section and the requisite knowledge, this is just a matter of finding pages, to my inexpert mind. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I predicted it. The article has some unsourced paragraphs during I was adding the citations. Not to mention, they are also some parts that is not understandable per criterion 1a, for example the partial derivative part. Also, the history section, to me, is somewhat not related, as it mentions the history of how the calculus was made; maybe this could be expanded or merge to any other sections, or just delete it literally? I do think there are lot of problems in this article. Pinging more users: @Jacobolus, @David Eppstein, @XOR'easter, @D.Lazard for more comments???? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article would benefit significantly from an effort to add a gentler informal or semi-formal description at the top, with less jargon, more pictures, and accessible to a wider audience. (A better history section would also be nice.) Other than that, this article seems mostly fine, and this reassessment is IMO a waste of time. Please feel free to add more specific citations if you want. All of this material is easily verifiable and discussed extensively in the cited references. –jacobolus (t) 20:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify jacobolus, are you saying that you feel this article meets the GA criteria, or that there is no need for this article to meet the GA criteria and discussing whether it should is a waste of time? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying this article seems like a fine Wikipedia article. Like most of them, it could use additional work. 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. Addressing the specific criticisms raised here isn't going to make the article substantively better, and there are many more valuable improvements that could be made (but also don't have to be; as I said it's a fine article). Knock yourself out though. –jacobolus (t) 02:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second option, then. Thanks for your quick response. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion

@AirshipJungleman29, @Jacobolus: the discussion of improvement may be found in many places: see at my talk and the talk page of the article Derivative. In my talk page, me and XOR'easter discussed the improvement in the section of definition. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you and to XOR for working on the article. I hope the article will be improved, to the benefit of the readers. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions from me regarding the improvement of this article:

I'm looking for the possibility of a scenario about the notation part: should this section mention after the higher derivative? In my opinion, the notation describes many different notations of differentiation, including the high order. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I wonder why its applications remain stuck at the Differential calculus#Applications. Is it possible to write them down in this article, instead? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2023 (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.