Talk:M-theory/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vinethemonkey (talk · contribs) 19:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and I am Vinethemonkey. I shall review this article. Let's begin!

Grammar and Errors

Skimming through the article, I see no obvious grammar and spelling errors. Check thoroughly to make sure that grammar and spelling is correct.

Citation "Proportion"

Number of citations are good.

Citations Itself

Citation #67 is only a commentary. Please check, and add a reference to it or delete the citation.

Also, a couple of the citations go back all the way to late 1970s. Would this be technically "out of date"? Check this out.

Is it Understandable?

My answer here is: Yes.

Pictures

Indeed, there are a number of pictures that adequately suit the article. Some may need a citation (I might be wrong; confirm this).

However, I do doubt the matrix picture is necessary. Please check that out, and respond if you do or do not need it.

Also, can you say how the tessellation is related to the M-Theory in the captions?

Overall

I will wait for you to do the following:

Check grammar and spelling thoroughly.
Check citation #67.
Check to make sure that the citations are NOT out of date.
Check out the picture of the definition of a matrix.
Check out the tessellation caption.

Confirm these, and respond. I will keep watch of this page. It may take anywhere from 1 day to 1 week for me to respond back.

Thanks! Vinethemonkey (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Vinethemonkey[reply]

Response

Thank you Vinethemonkey for this helpful review. I have made changes to the article in response to your comments:

1. I ran a spell check, and everything seems to be spelled correctly. I'll keep an eye out for any grammar mistakes.

2. I have added a reference to an article of Randall and Sundrum in citation #67.

3. I reviewed the citations to older articles, and everything should be okay. I cited these older papers in the history section merely to give the original references. The statements in this section are also supported by Duff's 1998 article.

4. According to WP:WHYCITE, citations are expected in the image captions as in the rest of the article. In this case, it seems to me that the statements in the captions are all supported either by the main text or the file page. Please let me know if there's any particular caption that you feel requires a citation.

5. I originally included the matrix picture so that readers with less knowledge of mathematics could understand. I have now removed the picture, but I would be interested in hearing others' thoughts on this.

6. I explained more precisely the connection to M-theory in one of the captions in the section on AdS/CFT.

Please let me know if you have any further comments. Polytope24 (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, Polytope24, for the response. Most of these problems seem to be cleared up. In response to #5, we can see what the public opinion is about the matrix picture.

We are almost ready to go for good article. Let's just see public opinion about #5! Vinethemonkey (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Vinethemonkey[reply]

Thanks Vinethemonkey. The article has been pretty stable now for about a week, so I'm guessing people weren't too upset about the removal of that matrix picture! Please let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to change in the article. Polytope24 (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Polytope24! We are ready to go! Congrats! Vinethemonkey (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Vinethemonkey[reply]

Thanks again for helping out with this! Polytope24 (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]