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).
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
Comments: No MOS issues seen with fractions per MOS:FRAC. Further cmts to be made. Eumat114 (Message) 03:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment: "compose" triples should not be changed to produce triples, because the sentence is talking about combining two triples to get new ones. Compare the other usages at Composition#Mathematics. XOR'easter (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HeartGlow30797: Two points with regards to the comments in 1(a):
"Brahmagupta solved many Pell equations with this method; in particular he showed how to obtain solutions..." I'm not like the word "in particular". We could replace it with "...this method by showing how to obtain..." — In fact I think this sentence is better as is;
"(sequence A001081 (x) and A001080 (y) in OEIS)." Provide a citation instead of putting it in parentheses. Do the same to all others. — The article is using the OEIS link template: Template:OEIS link, which is best practice.
And one wrt. point 3(b): rather than recommending shortnening, which is a difficult editorial instruction, I'm inclined to think you should identify a passage that you think would better be in another article and suggest a better home for the material. The point of WP:SUMMARY is not to have deprive readers of technical content, but rather to ensure that the material we have is digestable. (This is a shallow response to the review. I'm going to look over the article more carefully.) — Charles Stewart(talk) 11:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]