Talk:Hilbert transform/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dolphin51 (talk · contribs) 03:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation of sources

I am aware of the guidance about citation of sources in articles on math and science found at WP:SCG but my view is that Hilbert transform presently lacks in-line citations sufficient to allow independent verification of the material. It contains about 27 references and a similar number of Harvard-style citations; but only four in-line citations and they all apply to the same sentence. Mostly the Harvard-style citations consist of a document title but no detail regarding chapter, verse or page. There are many statements in the article that could, and should, be supported by an in-line citation. For example, as I finished perusing the article I was struck by the last sentence:

Failure to appreciate or correctly apply these concepts is probably one of the most common mistakes made by non-experts in the digital signal processing field.

In the absence of an in-line citation, statements like this look like original research.

Articles on mathematical subjects are not within my field of expertise so I will ask for a second opinion.Dolphin (t) 04:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the inline citations have page, section, or theorem information. Many of those that do not are to a short paper (and it is common on Wikipedia to reference the whole paper), or the page information is in the References section (although this is a little unconventional). Of the remaining references, I have tagged those that lack page numbers. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I hate the citation format used on here currently, as it makes the text a lot harder to read as opposed to the generally used citation method. Rules-wise it's considered okay, but discouraged, and I would ask for a change. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No comment either way, but some editors do feel strongly to the contrary. I think this best regarded as an issue of personal style. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The citation style used extensively in the article is called parenthetical referencing and detailed guidance is available at Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing. Many of the citations presented using this method are presented only as author and date - no detailed information about chapter, verse or page number is provided. This is a significant impediment to the task of independently verifying the statement to which the citation is attached. Parenthetical referencing is not a means for Users to avoid the tedious task of supplying details such as page numbers - see WP:Parenthetical referencing#Page numbers

There are now a number of Unreferenced section banners in this article, and there is the problem of citations that lack appropriate detail. I believe these things need to be repaired before Hilbert transform can be promoted to Good Article. Dolphin (t) 07:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that these issues need to be addressed, but when you say "Many of the citations presented using this method are presented only as author and date", do you mean besides the two or three that I have marked? (I would not consider that to be "many"). If so, could you indicate more clearly which references need to be fixed? Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I see you have tagged five citations with the {{cn}} tag to indicate a need for page numbers. (The tag {{page needed}} would be more self-explanatory.) I also see that a number of the References have embedded page numbers. The following References appear to be lacking adequate detail but someone might be able to explain why each one doesn't need more detail:

History: Bitsadze (2001) and Hilbert (1953)

Boundedness: Duoandikoetxea (2000)

Hilbert transform on the circle: Khvedelidze (2001)

Bedrosian's theorem: Schreier & Scharf (2010) and Bedrosian (1962)

Dolphin (t) 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of these do not require page numbers. For instance, Bitsadze (2001) is a very short EoM article as is Khvedelidze (2001). Bedrosian (1962) is a technical report that is entirely devoted to the topic that it is being referenced for. I'm not sure how the Hilbert reference is being used, I think it's as a primary source. I've added a secondary source to back it up, feeling that's ultimately more important than giving a specific page number to the Hilbert reference. I agree with the other two (but I have already flagged these as needing page numbers). Anything else? Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I am now satisfied that the existing citations either provide adequate detail or have been tagged by you as needing further information. There is also the matter of the sections that have been tagged as unreferenced.

The lead section is also unreferenced. That is satisfactory providing the material in the lead summarises material elsewhere in the article. Some of the material in the lead, and particularly the second paragraph, appears not to summarise material from the remainder of the article. Are some citations necessary to cover some of the material in the lead?

On 22 November you made these comments about the article. No-one has commented further on the matter. Has anything been done to address your comments and, if so, are you satisfied with the result? (After leaving comments or suggestions about a GA nomination it is helpful to the reviewer if some closure is provided - for example, see my diff.) Dolphin (t) 04:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No. I would say that there still a few obstructions (besides citations) that remain with the article. I'm worried mostly about the good article criteria 3 (Broad in its coverage), 4 (Neutral), 6 (Illustrated). I don't find it adequately broad, because it does not include any applications, besides the section on signal processing. On the other hand, there is too much emphasis on the signal processing point of view (WP:WEIGHT). It should probably be summarized here, and moved out to a separate article. I also find the emphasis on harmonic analysis to be a bit too technical for a casual reader, and I wonder what can be done to make the article more digestible. (This is part of the source of my earlier suggestion regarding the introduction.) Finally, there aren't any images at all. I know that the Hilbert transform is probably very hard to "visualize", but is there a creative way of illustrating the Riemann-Hilbert problem? That seems like it might be doable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion

Hilbert transform was nominated for Good Article status in late November by User:Thenub314. On two occasions, reviewers have volunteered to review the article as part of the GA process. (The previous occasion is recorded at Talk:Hilbert transform/GA1.) On neither occasion has Thenub314 participated in the discussion on the Talk pages, or contributed to the Talk pages in any way.

Almost a week ago I left a message at Thenub314's User talk page, asking that he participate in the discussion on the Talk pages or let us know what his intentions are regarding his GA nomination of Hilbert transform - see my diff. Thenub314 has edited Wikipedia only once since I left my message, and that was not an edit related to the GA nomination of Hilbert transform.

It seems Thenub314 is busy with other activities at present, and is unable to spare the time to participate in the GA nomination of Hilbert transform. Within the next 24 hours it is my intention to close the current GA review of Hilbert transform, but Thenub314, or anyone else, will be most welcome to re-nominate the article for GA status at any time in the future. Dolphin (t) 01:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.