Wikipedia:Featured article review/Group (mathematics)/archive1

Group (mathematics)

Group (mathematics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Group (mathematics)

• Featured article review/Group (mathematics)/archive1

Notified:Jakob.scholbach [1],David Eppstein, [2], WP Math, talk page notice 2021-04-20

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article was promoted in 2008 and current FA requirements are more demanding particularly with regard to citations, which are lacking for sections of this article. Graham Beards (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Graham Beards I notified WikiProject Math. Also, FAR recently went back from a one-week wait period to a two-week wait after notifying the talk page (some editors did not realize this), so this FAR might be a week early. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Math is a little different, as some of the math stuff is probably self-proving per WP:WTC. But there is some stuff in here that's not self-proving that ought to have citations, such as "Further abstract algebraic concepts such as modules, vector spaces and algebras also form groups" or "Such spontaneous symmetry breaking has found further application in elementary particle physics, where its occurrence is related to the appearance of Goldstone bosons.". Hog Farm _Talk 16:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The Goldstone claim needs a citation, but modules, vector spaces, and algebras are very basic algebraic structures that extend groups by adding more structure, as anyone with any familiarity of those concepts would already know, so that statement is not so much a claim as a pointer to closely related topics, much like an article on lions would probably have a sentence mentioning tigers and leopards. When asked for what specifically needed citation on the article talk page, the nominator, Graham Beards, was non-responsive. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: - Would it be effective to on a talk page somewhere for me to come up with statements that might need citations, so there's at least an clear idea about what needs done here? Hog Farm _Talk 17:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I've given a few examples of statements that may need citations on talk. Many paragraphs will fall squarely under 'domain-specific knowledge', and won't need citations. I don't quite have that knowledge, having taken only a bit of group theory at uni. More input welcome :). FemkeMilene (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for those examples, FemkeMilene. Overall, I think the article is in pretty good shape. A little rephrasing and footnoting here and there, and I'd be happy with it. Also, it seems to have accumulated references in a few different styles; those should be made uniform. XOR'easter (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

My first impression is that the examples and applications section could do with making the examples more accessible. I looked in particular at Group (mathematics)#Symmetry_groups and saw that there were no elementary examples of what symmetry groups were (it talks about symmetry groups being "of geometric nature" before moving to the advanced topic of symmetries of polynomials), and then when it talked about molecular symmetry it talks about advanced topics such as phase transitions without bread-and-butter matters such as them being useful to chemists in predicting the properties of simple molecules. I'll look at other sections, but my guess is that if such an expositional gift of a topic as permutation groups runs before it walks, I'll see the same disease elsewhere. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

In fact, the article opens with an elaborate example of a symmetry group, the symmetry group of a square. I don't know how much more introductory you want things to be there. The symmetries of polynomials are explained further down in the section on Galois groups. Again, this is as introductory as it can be.

That said, groups just so ubiquitous, so that it is impossible to both cover a reasonable broadness, and at the same time be introductory (or non-shallow!). We do have a lot of introductory content early on, some of the later sections are less so. IMO, this is fully deservedly so. You might want to familiarize with the lengthy(!) discussions at the FA nomination. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You are quite right: I was thrown off by the language "introductory symmetry group". I've rephrased this sentence so the connection to the examples section and the later section on Galois theory is clearer. I'm still not happy with this subsection: geometric symmetry groups are huge in physics and chemistry and I think this isn't really made clear, but I've looked at the other subsections in examples and applications and I find them much better. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Update: first set of comments has been addressed, and I've added a second set. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• Update: second set has mostly been addressed, would welcome fresh set of eyes. Hog Farm, did you want to have a look still? FemkeMilene (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: - Yeah, I'll take a look. I've never been taught group theory (and I graduate from college this month, so kudos to the America education system), so I'll likely to come across as completely clueless here. Hog Farm _Talk 20:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Femkemilene and Hog Farm: Update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

My remarks have been addressed, but the article editors have been identifying and solving more issues that go over my head: @David Eppstein, @Jakob.scholbach: could you give an update? I'll have a final look over the article when you're done. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

In my mind, this article does not imperatively need any further substantial edits to have FA-level. Unless I am overlooking something the only "open" point is that Quondum raised the idea of reworking through two subsections (see talk). I have voiced my dissent with their ideas there on talk, and prefer not to implement Quondum's suggestion there, but in any cases this would be a smaller-scope edit and nothing that would require upholding a decision of the FA status of this article. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jakob on this. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I think my concerns have been addressed, although 95% of this article went straight over my head, so I don't feel confident giving an opinion on this. Hog Farm _Talk 16:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm happy to close without farc for one thing. The first two sentences are too complicated imo. The article overall does a good job being understandable, but I think the starts let's us down.

  In mathematics, a group is a set equipped with a binary operation that combines any two elements to form a third element in such a way that conditions called group axioms are satisfied, namely associativity, identity and invertibility. These conditions are familiar from many mathematical structures, such as number systems: for example, the integers endowed with the addition operation form a group.

  • Both are a bit too long
  • I think that 'combines any two elements to form a third element' explains the word 'binary', right? If so, can we drop it to avoid starting with jargon?
  • the 'called group axioms' can be moved to the second sentence maybe to shorten the first.
  • I think having such as and for example in close proximity is poor prose.
  • Is there is an easier synonym for endowed?

  In mathematics, a group is a set equipped with a binary operation that combines any two elements to form a third element in such a way that three conditions called group axioms are satisfied, namely associativity, identity and invertibility. These conditions, called group axioms, are familiar from many mathematical structures such as number systems: for example, the integers endowed with the addition operation form a group.

  Neither an expert, nor a prose genius here, so happy for others to have a go. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I have incorporated your suggestions. About the binary operation: in a way this "jargon" was explained right after, so I think this is an OK approach. But since it is not absolutely crucial to mention the word binary there I followed your idea and dropped it. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Close without FARC: brilliant work :). FemkeMilene (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: - As nominator, do you have anything further to add here? Hog Farm _Talk 19:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

They indicated on their talk page they wanted to stand back from the review: User_talk:Graham_Beards#Group_FAR. FemkeMilene (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)