Talk:Paterson's worms/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 14:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing the article over the next few days. I should point out that this is my first Good Article review so the views of other people will be welcome.

On first reading the article I see no basic problems. However the lead section seems to introduce matter that is not included in the main article. See WP:LEAD for more information. In particular, the sentence "described by Beeler in June 1973 MIT AI Memo #290" means little to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Here are some preliminary comments, and by the way, I like the animation.

The last sentence in the first lead paragraph states that "the ultimate fate of two variants is still unknown". However later in the article it states that Tomas Rokicki solved one of these, ".. leaving only {1,0,4,2,0,1,5} unsolved".
- Done. I have corrected this. Reyk _YO! 22:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, the first sentence in the second lead paragraph is unsatisfactory ".. described by Beeler in June 1973 MIT AI Memo #290: "Paterson's Worm".
- Done- moved to the history section. Reyk _YO! 22:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Rules" does not have a citation, though, having looked at the other references, I see they mostly explain the rules quite clearly.
- Done. The whole of that paragraph is sourced to Beeler; I assume just one cite tag is enough. Reyk _YO! 22:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the "History" section is close paraphrased from its source. For example:

Source - Certain prehistoric worms fed on sediment in the mud at the bottom of ponds.
Article - Certain species of prehistoric worms fed upon sediment at the bottom of ponds.

- Done I have reworded that sentence. I don't see any other obvious too-close paraphrases. Reyk _YO! 22:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions and the review. I've acted on all your points and I think they definitely make the article better. Cheers! Reyk _YO! 22:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another point, the article's title is "Paterson's worms" with a lower case for the "w". There is a lack of consistency in the article as to whether "worms" should be capitalised. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Good catch. I've uncapitalized it throughout. Reyk _YO! 09:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further details

Thank you for those changes. A few other points have occurred to me:

Would it be more logical to have the history section at the beginning?
- Done- I agree. Moved. Reyk _YO! 02:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the coverage of the topic sufficiently in depth to meet the GA criteria such as criterion 3? Other available sources include this and
- Brian Hayes. "Computing Science: In Search of the Optimal Scumsucking Bottomfeeder". American Scientist Vol. 91, No. 5 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2003), pp. 392-396 JSTOR 27858267. Another editor tells me that they could provide the latter as a pdf file if that would help.
I've put the first of the sources in. I haven't got access to the full version of the Brian Hayes source so that PDF would definitely be helpful. Reyk _YO! 03:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"There are 1296 possible combinations of worm rules." Perhaps you could expand this to explain the figure.
- Done- I've explained how the figure of 1,296 is calculated and referred it to the "numbered dirfections" figure. Reyk _YO! 03:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"He used an algorithm based on Bill Gosper's Hashlife to simulate the worms at extraordinary speeds." Could you add a little detail about the memoized algorithm used.
- Unfortunately I have not been able to find any more info about it. Reyk _YO! 11:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Patterson's worms have any practical applications?
- I'm not sure. None of the sources I've seen mention it. Reyk _YO! 03:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Nearly there I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Fossilized worm tracks." image looks ugly on the left. I suggest it goes on the right. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Reyk _YO! 11:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which scale (long or short scale) is used throughout this article? For instance, it isn't clear whether a trillion specifies $10^{12}$ or $10^{18}$ .
(Vierkantswortel2 (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.