Talk:BIT predicate/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

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

Reviewer: Frzzl (talk · contribs) 22:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   see below

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Notes and Refs are formatted fine, couldn't find any issues with OR. Earwig comes up with 2.0%, so no issues there. Source checks below.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article covers the history, meaning, and uses. I think that fits the scope well, and it doesn't digress.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   couldn't find any problems here

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   I think any sort of edit war on this article would be difficult to come about.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Only image is created by the nominator, no licensing problems.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Review

Hello! I'm going to take on this review; I think I can just about wrap my head around the maths in this one! I should be able to start either tomorrow or overmorrow - the article looks to be in good shape so with luck this should be rather swift.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  22:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I should have more time to respond beginning Sunday. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Right, I should start off with an apology for taking such a horrendously long time to get around to this review - life got hectic over the last few days. That aside, here are some points on content; I'll do a source check after these to pass the article.

Content

• Here the bits of i are numbered from the low-order bits to high-order bits in the binary representation of i, with the ones bit being numbered as bit 0. The subexpression i>>j shifts these bits so that bit i is shifted to position 0, and the subexpression &1 masks off the remaining bits, leaving only the bit in position 0. - The first sentence is giving the impression that the usage of the expression numbers the bits of i - surely a binary number would be initialised with its bits already in this order? Can we also link Binary shift and Bitmask?
  • This comment caused me to realize that the "description" section was missing a brief gloss of binary notation and a definition from it of the bit predicate, which I added at the start of the section. This caused the quoted sentence to become redundant, and I removed it. Shift was already linked, in the previous sentence. I added the link to mask, since it is not the same as the link to bitwise and from the previous sentence. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Link Computer security in #Private information retrieval
  • Done. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Richard Rado in 1964 used the BIT predicate to construct the infinite Rado graph. - this sounds fairly unnatural to me, can we switch it for something more along the lines of In 1964, the German-British mathematician Richard Rado...?
  • Done. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Finally, link Isomorphism just to be on the safe side.
  • Done. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

These are tiny points because the article is very good. I'll go through the sources once these are addressed.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  19:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Frzzl: Ok, I think I've handled these; please take another look. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  OK, happy with the content.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  09:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Source checks

Status:  Done

• Some of the refs need moving around, for example in the first paragraph of the History section; I don't think that source 2 can be used to cite the bit about membership testing - the first sentence should be cited by 2 and the second by 1.

Sources I've verified (from rev 1169738141) 1, 2, both uses of 6, 10, 11 13, 17 (it's not explicit, but I'm fine with it) - so, the article is verifiable.

The referencing for the Notes is on the whole formatted well, no problems there; once you've moved the refs for that paragraph around, I can pass the article :D  Frzzl  talk; contribs  10:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the first paragraph of history so that the membership testing is sourced only to Ackermann. I left both references on the sentence "The BIT predicate was first introduced in 1937 by Wilhelm Ackermann" since one of them is the original reference by Ackermann and the other one is used here as a secondary source for Ackermann being the one to introduce it. Were there any other similar issues? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

No others as far as I can tell, so I'll pass the article. Thanks for the article, it was a pleasure to work with you!  Frzzl  talk; contribs  10:36, 14 August 2023 (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.