Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

While some of the statements could be cited to the mathematical data included in the article, other prose (such as in the "History" and "Electronics" sections) needs to be cited. Z1720 (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were not before the GAR was opened and still are not any cleanup tags on this article such as [citation needed]. The only actual error category on the article is the newly-instantiated ISBN-date mismatch. Therefore, to me, starting the cleanup process by immediately opening a GAR seems like an excessively strong first measure. Maybe it would have been less confrontational to have tried placing [citation needed] tags first, and then waited enough time to see whether they were addressed, disputed, or ignored before opening a GAR? Even now that the GAR has been opened, you could still place those tags. Doing so would make it more clear to editors what you think is inadequately cited rather than this vague wave which leaves much to the imagination and makes it impossible to determine whether any steps one might take would satisfy you.

To put it another way: the preferred outcome of a GAR is to restore an article to deserving GA status, not to delist. If cleanup tags can head off a GAR before it starts, that would be even better. And telling us that the article is inadequate without providing specific-enough guidance for why you think so is a step towards the non-preferred outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 can you provide some citation needed tags and other tags for describing the problem you have listed? As for a quick note, I am pinging @Jakob.scholbach as the nominator in 2009. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @David Eppstein: Some editors have described the addition of citation needed templates as disruptive, which is why I only add them when asked. I have now added some where I think they are needed and I see that other editors have also added cn templates to the article. If any editors are concerned about my conduct in GARs, please open a new thread at WT:GAN where the conversation may be more appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did open a thread about WT:GAN, not about you specifically but about whether it is reasonable to expect that an article not tagged for any problems to suddenly come under GAR. And in that thread, you deflected again, saying that you would rather be pinged than discuss things there. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Jakob.scholbach appears not to have been active for almost a year. Fortunately, matrices are a basic enough topic that any other mathematician should be able to contribute, without requiring any special expertise. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, lest this GAR appear inactive: improvement to the tagged missing citations has been ongoing on the article itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was inactive on Wikipedia for some time, but by accident I stumbled across this GAN. I am not convinced this GAN is actually warranted, but I will try to allocate some time to resolve the citation needed tags. Any help is of course appreciated! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakob.scholbach Since the nominator, again, did not provide further comments, I should have intervened as well. @Z1720, I will take over the nomination, hope you do not mind. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr: Happy for anyone to help. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions or if this is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

• I never heard of , or , is used in place of as a symbol for square matrix, although it is used in some StackExchange's posts. If this is often, then more sources are preferable use them at all. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is getting technical as scrolling down, starting from Linear transformations. Another one is in the infinite matrices, where is not very well-known to strangers.

I agree this section was not well done. I have removed most of it. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "There are many algorithms for testing whether a square matrix is invertible." Should you add some more algorithms?
• I will add some citation needed tags in some places, but I will also help to supply the requested citations.

That's all, and I'll check again after this. My time is short now. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the "Matrix groups" section has a confusing (and maybe redundant?) footnote that refers to "the general linear group" before general linear groups are defined. Footnote 95 just says "See any reference in representation theory or group representation." As I understand the culture here, that should be replaced with a specific book.

I think it is fine this way, especially given that is just a footnote. There is a tradeoff between keeping the focus and being correct (or even pedantic) here. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section heading "Linear combinations of quantum states" seems rather obfuscated. Why not just call it "Quantum physics" or "Quantum mechanics"? The text is also somewhat confused. Density matrices aren't an example of "matrix mechanics" as Heisenberg developed it in 1925; they were introduced some years later. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I changed the quantum physics paragraph. I think bringing in "eigenstates" was also confusing. That was just one more unfamiliar and undefined term. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there rules for what goes in the "See also"? It looks kind of like a junk drawer. I mean, why "Bohemian matrices", of all things? 64.112.179.236 (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, these items should mostly (or all?) be removed.Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote to Mehra & Rechenberg (1987) needs a page number. Those are pretty big books. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few references in response to the citation needed tags. My overall impression is that the large majority of these requests are quite overblown: especially when it comes to the more survey-like sections, a look in the corresponding sub-article will practically always bring up references etc. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• When I saw some of the cn tags removed on my watchlist, I checked and agreed that they could be removed. If I disagree, I'll post below. Regarding the latter part of your comment about "corresponding sub-article will practically always bring up references": Information in the article needs to be referenced in the same article, as Wikipedia does not expect readers to click on a wikilink and find the information in a sub-article to verify the information (WP:V). Of course, Wikipedia articles can use the same sources: if the source is in the sub-article, the referencing can be copied and pasted into this article. Z1720 (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]