Archive for Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating, which "is a process for discussing and determining whether mathematics articles should be given A-class status."
Addition (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
review
Nominated by:
Salix alba (
talk)
08:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
Result: not promoted. Seems to be getting close, but still too weak on education and history. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 00:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I was away for a little while, but there were no new comments. Melchoir, is your concern about the Interpretations section satisfied? I have two areas of concern:
I can work on the first of these, but the second could use a more knowledgable editor. CMummert · talk 19:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Peano axioms (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
review
Nominated by:
CMummert ·
talk
00:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
Result: Promoted to A class. Consensus is solidly in favour. —
Kaustuv Chaudhuri
01:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
In an inductive definition, the proof that the function F is unique is an easy proof by mathematical induction and will be left as an exercise. However, the proof that the function F exists uses set theoretical techniques that we shall not discuss here.
Knot theory (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
review
Nominated by:
Salix alba (
talk)
14:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
Decision: Promoted to A class since there are no objections. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 05:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Poincaré conjecture (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
review
Nominated by:
C S
(Talk)
01:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
Result: Promoted to A class. The only outstanding criticism is the rather vague "the prose could also be made a bit tighter". No comments have been made for quite some time, so I have to make a decision, and this discussion leads me to the conclusion that the article is not quite FA class but close. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 11:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Hey guys, I am on a unassessed article journey and I am going to give the article a B until you decided on this issue.-- Cronholm144 01:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The consensus is to promote to A class. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Area of a disk (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
review
Nominated by:
KSmrq
T
{{
Citation}}
template) we can now hyperlink Harvard-style; will do so. --
KSmrq
T
23:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
Looks good overall. I'm somewhat unhappy with the "generalizations" section. So I fixed it to be more intuitive and descriptive (fixing a missing π in the process). -- C S (Talk) 06:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't have any outstanding issues. Time to promote? CMummert · talk 17:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply
The consensus is to remove the A-class rating. — Carl (
CBM ·
talk)
03:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
Fermat's last theorem (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
review
Nominated by:
Geometry guy
18:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
I've been going through the articles which were assessed as A-Class before this review process was instigated, checking if they still meet the standard. This one caught my eye, because in September 2006, it was listed as a candidate for Mathematics Collaboration of the Week with the comment "The history of this conundrum is really fascinating, but the article hardly does it justice". It doesn't meet the criteria for MATHCOTM collaboration, so I removed it from the list, but it may be worthy of an A-Class Review.
It was listed as A-Class in October 2006, although there were no substantial changes since September. There have not been many changes since then: a little more on early attempts at the proof, some additional references, and more pop-culture.
It is surely close to A-Class (unless we are going to worry about citation and WP:SCG), but I wonder if it has really nailed it on the completeness front: there are opportunities here to add more mathematical content (rather than history and pop-culture). For instance, the contributions of Germain and Kummer could be expanded: the latter in particular inspired the development of ring theory, ideals, and the ideal class group. And surely more could be said about the proof — perhaps we should separate the proof from the history of the proof. At present the text seems to imply that Wiles proved the Taniyama–Shimura conjecture — whereas my understanding is that he only proved a special case (which was sufficient for FLT) — and links with the Langlands program go unmentioned.
So I think it might benefit from the keen eye (and keyboard) of a few project members! Geometry guy 19:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply
PS. It is currently listed as Bplus-Class, but this is partly an accident: the page was moved from "Fermat's Last Theorem", but the Comments weren't, so I thought the rating was unsigned, and didn't feel confident to sign it off as A-Class, so I downgraded it to Bplus. In other words, this is more of a review than a promotion question.
I have to say the writing in this article is truly atrocious. I'll help a bit, but this really needs a whole overhaul, mathematical issues aside. -- C S (Talk) 02:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't think there is consensus to promote to A-class, but the article seems close. Perhaps another nomination in a month or two, after the edits User:Turgidson proposed]]. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 16:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Homotopy groups of spheres (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
review
I believe that this article now meets the standard for A-Class. In particular, I believe it is comprehensive, factually accurate and verifiable, and would like experts to check this and point out areas for improvement. However, I am mainly nominating here to ask for input from members of the Mathematics WikiProject (and others) on the presentation, balance, and accessibility of the article. Is the technical material accessible enough for an article of this nature? Is there too much technical material? In what ways could the presentation could be improved? How broad is the target audience? I hope this will stimulate some useful discussion.
Nominated by:
Geometry guy
18:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
I read through the first several sections in detail, and skimmed that later ones. It's a good article, although (perhaps unavoidably) only accessible to someone with a decent ability to handle blue links and notation. Concrete areas of possible improvement:
For someone who already has an undergrad background, or who is willing to accept undefined terms to get a bigger picture, this is a very nice article to read. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply