Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a22cdd26ebe9c892

Jump to content

Talk:Decltype/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Decltype in topic GA Review

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ruslik_Zero 10:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

  1. Please, expand the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article. The current lead does not contain a summary of the first section (Motivation). I think the lead should consist of two paragraphs, where the first paragraph summarizes the first section.
  2. The article should make it clear what is the difference between 'typeof' and 'decltype'.
  3. Refs 2, 7, 9, 14 and 16 lack publisher information.

I found no other problems. Ruslik_Zero 10:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reviewing, I'll do my best to correct the issues. decltype (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have expanded the lede slightly, with emphasis on summarizing the article. I could easily have written more, but tried to balance it with the overall size of the article. The point about typeof being a common name for different non-standard type-deducing operators, while decltype is _the_ standardized version has been explicitly made in the lede. I have added publisher information to the refs. Let me know if you have further suggestions for improvement, or are dissatisfied with the changes I made. decltype (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, the article is promoted. Ruslik_Zero 19:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Again, thanks for reviewing. Regards, decltype (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply