2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
This is my second assessment. So feel free to get a second opinion if you feel this is wrong. This is a great article, just fix the wording and you'll be golden :D.
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
@HeartGlow30797: I've taken out the "intuitively" and "formally" qualifiers from the lead as unnecessary. However, the rest of your comment on criterion 1a does not really provide me any guidance on where to look for text that does not flow well. Can you provide me some more specific examples? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me as though this matter is resolved. I came here because of the note requesting a second opinion, and I concur with, it seems, both of you, that the lead is in fact very readable: for the topic, I'd say it was surprisingly approachable, a model of good technical writing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and in any case, while this kind of issue might be appropriate for a FA review, the GA article criteria are looking for clarity rather than exemplary style. I think the article can be promoted as is. — Charles Stewart(talk) 08:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]