Talk:Fibonacci sequence/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 14:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The external link tool to the right reveals one dead link that needs to be addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation link tool to the right reveals 4 issues to be addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do not introduce On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences before presenting its acronym. Please help the uninformed reader with a format Full name (Abbreviation).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By definition...0 and 1... (I hope you later explain why it does not start with 1 and 2).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should "either with F0 = 0 or with F1 = 1" be "either with F1 = 0 or with F1 = 1" or "either with F0 = 0 or with F0 = 1"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an appropriate infobox for sequences?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"saying that the cases for m beats (Fm+1) is obtained by adding a [S] to Fm cases and [L] to the Fm−1 cases" Makes little sense to me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revise each line of the first, second, third and fourth month to say how many rabbits and thus how many pairs. It gets confusing and I think some of your explaintions make it more so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas there seems to be a useful relationship with the bunnies justifying considering Fibonacci numbers, you present no reason for the relevance of the negafibonaccis.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this section is unsourced, leaving the reader to question the veracity of the claim and to wonder if these were selected from a much larger list of examples.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to FAIL this article. There are too many subsections that are entirely unsourced. I am so far removed from my Masters in Stats that I keep looking for references that are not there. Any reader who wants to read this article will be at a loss to WP:V many important elements of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is so filled with jargon, I can barely read it. 66.87.67.72 (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]