Talk:Tensor network theory Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tensor_network_theory

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Neuroscience Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 1

• Most of your links are good, but I think that it would be helpful to have a direct link to the word "tensor" itself so people can look up what that is if they do not know.

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 1

• There is no course banner on the talk page, also there are a lot of pictures on your page, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but maybe consider prioritizing which ones are really necessary. (?)

8. Writing: 1

• Some grammatical inconsistencies, in the "Example section" in particular... "By calculating the neuronal network transformations between the sensory input into the vestibular system and the subsequent motor response, a metric tensor representing the neuronal network." Not really sure if this makes sense grammatically.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 1

• Not too sure how to make this "outstanding", but I do think it is a very interesting topic and I think you did a great job with it!

_______________ Total: 16 out of 20

Comments:

• Maybe you could consider adding some more sections to your topic to expand the text a little more. I'm not sure how much information there is on this though, so I'm not sure how feasible that would be.
• Great job so far though!

Andrea Trementozzi (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 1

• I agree you need to link to what a tensor is.

6. Responsive to comments: 1 Have not responded to comments on talk page from previous reviewer.

7. Formatting: 1 No course page banner Figures are all placed on right hand side and do not line up with section of text they represent. Try to either move them into text or left side and directly reference them.

8. Writing: 1

• The writing style, using sentence openers like, "in fact", "likewise" seem colloquial and non encyclopedic. It appears more of a narrative of someone else's research.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 1

• You have the history, an example, and an application, however you do not have a section looking at the actual mathematical model and basic principles of this theory. There is not model section or framework. If someone wanted to learn what it was and try to use it to solve a problem. This page would not have enough information.

_______________ Total: 15 out of 20

Keval tilva (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Quality of Information: 2

• Well-researched and organized

2. Article size: 2

• About 17,440 bytes

3. Readability: 1

• It was a little hard for me to follow through and understand. Maybe you could use less technical terms and jargon.

4. Refs: 1

• There were 13 references but they weren't much recent.

5. Links: 2

• You have sufficient links wherever possible but tensor could be linked.

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 1

• Pictures could be formatted better and the layout should be more organized.

8. Writing: 2

• Well written but you could avoid using a lot of technical terms and explain them more.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 1

Total: 16/20 --Angela Mariam Thomas (talk) comment added 15:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your peer reviews! I am addressing all your comments. The topic is relatively old and very theoretical. Therefore many of the references are a bit dated and applications of the theory bleed into other topics. I will take all suggestions into consideration and make fixes/improvements where needed. Thanks again!

Tam Van (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes thus far:

• Fixed minor grammar issues
• Removed superfluous image of VOR arc
• Improved image arrangement.
• Added link to "tensor" article.

Tam Van (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

add Juan Martín Maldacena's work add Juan Martín Maldacena's work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410A:C500:8D92:8418:8856:6CF1 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

both brain and brane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:410a:c500:8d92:8418:8856:6cf1 (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article talks about covariant and contravariant tensors, it would be nice to hear what the transformation group is. Otherwise the variance is merely a statement about typography, that is, where indices are written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.188.19 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]