Talk:ReRites

ReRites was nominated as a Language and literature good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 4, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Poetry Low‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronic literature

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic literatureTemplate:WikiProject Electronic literatureElectronic literature

"Confusing" tag - separate from machine learning explanation or the same issue?

Hi! Thanks for engaging with this entry, User:JPxG. You added the "Multiple issues" tag - can you explain the "Confusing" tag please? Does it refer to the explanation of the machine learning, or is it a separate issue? Lijil (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of the machine learning

Hi User:JPxG - you added a tag stating "This article needs attention from an expert in Machine Learning. The specific problem is: Explanation of the code makes no sense; TensorFlow, AWS and PyTorch are not neural networks. (October 2022)" I'm not sure what the problem is here, though. The text doesn't say that TensorFlow, AWS or PyTorch are neural networks, it quotes a statement from the author of the work explaining that it uses "neural network code (..) adapted from three corporate github-hosted machine-learning libraries: Tensorflow (Google), PyTorch (Facebook), and AWSD (SalesForce)". As I understand it the author trained a neural network using machine-learning libraries: Tensorflow (Google), PyTorch (Facebook), and AWSD (SalesForce) - there is no claim that the libraries are neural networks. Did you mean something different? Lijil (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. What I mean by this is that I don't think the description makes a lot of sense as a technical explanation of what he's using (PyTorch, for example, is a framework that doesn't itself specify architecture or implementation). The readme of his repository seems to mention a few models, although it's not quite clear which is being used for what tasks. It looks like the primary one is a LSTM/QRNN (the code allows either to be trained, and he doesn't really say which he used, so one hopes he's written about it in more detail somewhere else). The SalesForce model he implemented is described in this paper, which would probably be a good source for more technical details, but it is fairly late for me so I am not quite up to the task of diving in. jp×g 11:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:ReRites/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aintabli (talk · contribs) 08:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting subject, but I have some concerns: There are plenty of primary sources, videos on Vimeo, GitHub links, books lacking page numbers. It gets pretty difficult to ensure that the content is verifiable by reliable sources. I would try to weed these out and expand the lead to be a summary of the article. This is not crucial for the article to pass a GA nomination, but I recommend citing each source that includes a range of pages under a different "Bibliography" or "Sources" section so that each page could be cited with separate references with sfn or other relevant templates. There seems to be an excess usage of quotes, which causes this article to read more like a blog article instead of an encyclopedic entry. In my opinion, the article needs some major changes, which would be outside of the scope of a GA review. Aintabli (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]