| Revision as of 23:32, 1 July 2005 editCognition (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users999 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:31, 18 July 2021 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)Tag: AWB | ||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| This has been on for about a week, it got a couple of suggestions which I've since incorporated. A very nice article with ample references. ] 29 June 2005 02:41 (UTC) | This has been on for about a week, it got a couple of suggestions which I've since incorporated. A very nice article with ample references. ] 29 June 2005 02:41 (UTC) | ||
| I'd like to add that this '''isn't''' a self-nom; my first major edit to this article was to put it up for peer review. ] 3 July 2005 14:44 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | *'''Comment''': Very interesting indeed. <s>The picture of the bust has a dubious copyright tag and a warning of deletion. I would, if possible, like to see some written references in the reference section rather than just links. Presumably some of the further reading works were also used as references, if so perhaps they should be incorporated as such. Subject to the copyright being sorted on the image I will be happy to support this well written article. ] | ] 29 June 2005 12:04 (UTC) <s> | ||
| :oh, and '''support''' ] 3 July 2005 16:38 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | *'''Comment''': Very interesting indeed. <s>The picture of the bust has a dubious copyright tag and a warning of deletion. I would, if possible, like to see some written references in the reference section rather than just links. Presumably some of the further reading works were also used as references, if so perhaps they should be incorporated as such. Subject to the copyright being sorted on the image I will be happy to support this well written article. ] | ] 29 June 2005 12:04 (UTC) </s> | ||
| ** Replaced the bust with a more acceptable picture. <s> Will deal with reference section shortly. </s> Thank you!] 29 June 2005 15:38 (UTC) | ** Replaced the bust with a more acceptable picture. <s> Will deal with reference section shortly. </s> Thank you!] 29 June 2005 15:38 (UTC) | ||
| ***Reference section fixed ] 30 June 2005 01:15 (UTC) | ***Reference section fixed ] 30 June 2005 01:15 (UTC) | ||
| Line 15: | Line 17: | ||
| **In what way exactly?, it seems great to me ] | ] 30 June 2005 18:55 (UTC) | **In what way exactly?, it seems great to me ] | ] 30 June 2005 18:55 (UTC) | ||
| ***I think it's not very good to have this order of layout: Intro, biography, personal, commemoration. I think his personal thing should either be put after the commemoration or inside the biography. ] 2005-07-01 01:20:10 (UTC) | ***I think it's not very good to have this order of layout: Intro, biography, personal, commemoration. I think his personal thing should either be put after the commemoration or inside the biography. ] 2005-07-01 01:20:10 (UTC) | ||
| ****Is it OK now? ] 3 July 2005 14:46 (UTC) | |||
| *'''OBJECT''' The article lacks perspective. I will not remove my objection until the article features a discussion of the influences of Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz, and Leonardo da Vinci on Gauss; and Gauss' influence on Bernhard Riemann, specifically Bernhard Riemann's 1852 habilitation dissertation. ] 1 July 2005 23:31 (UTC) | *<s>'''OBJECT'''</s> '''object''' The article lacks perspective. I will not remove my objection until the article features a discussion of the influences of Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz, and Leonardo da Vinci on Gauss; and Gauss' influence on Bernhard Riemann, specifically Bernhard Riemann's 1852 habilitation dissertation. ] 1 July 2005 23:31 (UTC) | ||
| **Cognition, I understand that you're a new user, or at least have a new account, and I don't respect your opinion any the less, but it's not necessary to shout it (=to use caps). Please also look to your tone on the ] vote. And incidentally please note that are an especially bad idea, since they can't be changed if/when you come to realize that they're inappropriate. Best wishes, ] | ] 2 July 2005 02:28 (UTC) | |||
| ***I did not use caps to denote shouting but to make the important above said constructive criticisms more notable to editors interested in improving the article. However, if the use of caps makes some people on Misplaced Pages uncomfortable, I will refrain from using them. ] 2 July 2005 02:32 (UTC) | |||
| **** Since this is a wiki, wouldn't it just be easier to un-Cap his objection? I suppose a "influences" section would be good, will do research on ppl who influenced and were influenced by Gauss, though I'm having trouble finding the specific example of Riemann's dissertation, gets 7 hits, and the only mention of Gauss in those articles are because "Gauss was Riemann's protege"-no mention of Gauss's specific influence, unfortunately. Maybe you could help out here yourself, since you seem like an expert on philosophy? keep in mind also that no Larouche sources are allowed, by wikipedia arbitration , ] 2 July 2005 09:53 (UTC) | |||
| *****'''Comment'''. {{User|Cognition}} is a supporter and likely a member of the ]. Two arbcom cases have ruled that editors may not use Misplaced Pages to promote the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche; that material stemming from LaRouche counts as ]; and that any such material inserted into a page not directly and closely related to LaRouche, may be deleted on sight by any editor. It's therefore highly unlikely that Cognition's objections are actionable within Misplaced Pages's policies and the terms of the arbitration committee's decisions. ] ] July 2, 2005 10:15 (UTC) | |||
| * '''No vote''': Not a bad article, still reads a bit fan-boyish, but improving. Can't see any particular reason why it should get FA status though. On the other hand, lots of worse articles are FA, so why not? PS: ignore Cognition, he's just a troublemaker, and almost certainly a reincarnation of a problem user banned some years ago. RK? DK? Some name like that. His style is unmistakable. ] 2 July 2005 10:52 (UTC) | |||
| **I think it's HK. Thanks for the pointer. On the other hand, can you please state specifically how this article can improved, or what would make it a genuine FA article in your eyes? ] 2 July 2005 11:20 (UTC) | |||
| *** A fair request, though not an easy one to comply with. I'll try. The article in its present state has most of the ingredients, but it (to my mind) doesn't gell. I think maybe it needs a clearer focus on his achievemts. It ''tells'' us that he was important (and very clever), and it lists a great number of achievements, but somehow it doesn't ''show'' us his importance. I'm sure that someone trained in the field would see it differently — but that's exactly the point: a FA should appeal to the untrained (but reasonably intelligent) reader just as much as it does to the trained specialist. What were the ''practical'' results of his discoveries, what flowed from them? Why was the SI unit named after him? Am I making sense? — Yes, I'm hard to please. But that's excactly the point: it ''should'' be hard to get a FA nmination through. To be a FA, it's not enough to have an article with nothing too much wrong with it, it's got to stand out above the crowd. Good luck! Best — ] 2 July 2005 11:36 (UTC) | |||
| ****I agree - this is a legitimate complaint, and the article would be better once it was addressed. ] July 2, 2005 19:02 (UTC) | |||
| ***** Will do my best. Most of his major contributions are in "pure" matehmatics, though so it might be a bit difficult, epsecially as I am a mathematician, and I don't have the outsider's perspective. Will try to explain his work in more detail, maybe I'll devote a section to it too. ] 3 July 2005 14:27 (UTC) | |||
| ****** Expanded the elaboration of the mathemtaics stuff. You're right, Tannin it isn't good to mention things like the ] without explanation. Mind having another look at it, and see if there are other aspects of Gauss' work that you feel need further explanation?] 3 July 2005 16:17 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - going back and forth between Braunschweig and Brunswick is rather jarring. Naming convention suggests that we have to list the Duke and the Duchy under the English spelling, but that doesn't mean we have to use it in every article. ] 2 July 2005 14:36 (UTC) | |||
| **Changed it all to Brunswick ] 3 July 2005 14:55 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. Although well-written and very interesting, I do not really understand the sentence about "maintaining historical truth".—] ] 2 July 2005 23:25 (UTC) | |||
| **Me neither. I had to open the link reference to find out. I've reworded it. Thank you! ] 3 July 2005 14:43 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. --] 07:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 05:31, 18 July 2021
Carl Friedrich Gauss
This has been on peer review for about a week, it got a couple of suggestions which I've since incorporated. A very nice article with ample references. Borisblue 29 June 2005 02:41 (UTC) I'd like to add that this isn't a self-nom; my first major edit to this article was to put it up for peer review. Borisblue 3 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)
- oh, and support Borisblue 3 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)
- Comment: Very interesting indeed.
The picture of the bust has a dubious copyright tag and a warning of deletion. I would, if possible, like to see some written references in the reference section rather than just links. Presumably some of the further reading works were also used as references, if so perhaps they should be incorporated as such. Subject to the copyright being sorted on the image I will be happy to support this well written article. Giano | talk 29 June 2005 12:04 (UTC) - Support: A fantastic article Giano | talk 30 June 2005 11:44 (UTC)
Not ready to support yet.Support. Fascinating subject, very good article, but too many peacock terms in the lead. I'm by no means saying it's POV to call Gauss brilliant and legendary with immeasurable contributions and immense influence: it's all true. But more rhetorical restraint and balance in the lead would actually make him sound better, IMO. I've just edited it, leaving only a couple of praisewords but giving those more prominence, upgrading the anticlimactic "substantial" and unpacking the easter egg link early age--please review it and see what you think.
- Reference section and inline references: Please make one "References" section for sources actually used in the article, and one "Further reading" section for others. "External links" is an optional section--if you want it, use it for online resources that aren't sources. I have the impression that probably everything was used, and if so, "References" is all you need. See here for how to format any online text, no matter which section it goes in: note author, retrieval date, etc. I've formatted one of them as an example: Dunnington, "The Sesquicentennial of the Birth of Gauss". Please note that I also stuck Dunnington in as an inline reference for the statement about how "convoluted" Gauss' brain was, which was why he was a genius... that is exactly the kind of quaint, outmoded statement that does need a specific inline reference! Please consider providing similar parenthetic cites for some other statements in the article, too, or footnotes if you prefer (but don't let anybody tell you footnotes are obligatory, the kind of simple parenthetic cite I did is quite sufficient). Hope this helps. I'll support if the references concerns are addressed. Bishonen | talk 29 June 2005 14:36 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks for the great editing. I'm sorry to say most of the peacock terms were mine, guess i got a little carried away. You're right, it does make him sound better. And thanks for the other suggestions! believe it or not, this is the first time I've seen the WP:CITE, (yeah, I'm a noob) so it's good that you gave the link.
Will tackle the reference section problem shortly.Borisblue 29 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks for the great editing. I'm sorry to say most of the peacock terms were mine, guess i got a little carried away. You're right, it does make him sound better. And thanks for the other suggestions! believe it or not, this is the first time I've seen the WP:CITE, (yeah, I'm a noob) so it's good that you gave the link.
- Support. Whig 30 June 2005 04:27 (UTC)
- Support: fascinating read. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 11:48 (UTC)
- Mild support: The man is very essential to the development of algebraic arithmetics, however the article itself is not quite well-written.--Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:29:58 (UTC)
OBJECTobject The article lacks perspective. I will not remove my objection until the article features a discussion of the influences of Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz, and Leonardo da Vinci on Gauss; and Gauss' influence on Bernhard Riemann, specifically Bernhard Riemann's 1852 habilitation dissertation. Cognition 1 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)- Cognition, I understand that you're a new user, or at least have a new account, and I don't respect your opinion any the less, but it's not necessary to shout it (=to use caps). Please also look to your tone on the Bertrand Russell vote. And incidentally please note that aggressive edit summaries are an especially bad idea, since they can't be changed if/when you come to realize that they're inappropriate. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 2 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)
- I did not use caps to denote shouting but to make the important above said constructive criticisms more notable to editors interested in improving the article. However, if the use of caps makes some people on Misplaced Pages uncomfortable, I will refrain from using them. Cognition 2 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)
- Since this is a wiki, wouldn't it just be easier to un-Cap his objection? I suppose a "influences" section would be good, will do research on ppl who influenced and were influenced by Gauss, though I'm having trouble finding the specific example of Riemann's dissertation, this gets 7 hits, and the only mention of Gauss in those articles are because "Gauss was Riemann's protege"-no mention of Gauss's specific influence, unfortunately. Maybe you could help out here yourself, since you seem like an expert on philosophy? keep in mind also that no Larouche sources are allowed, by wikipedia arbitration , Borisblue 2 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)
- Comment. Cognition (talk · contribs) is a supporter and likely a member of the LaRouche movement. Two arbcom cases have ruled that editors may not use Misplaced Pages to promote the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche; that material stemming from LaRouche counts as original research; and that any such material inserted into a page not directly and closely related to LaRouche, may be deleted on sight by any editor. It's therefore highly unlikely that Cognition's objections are actionable within Misplaced Pages's policies and the terms of the arbitration committee's decisions. SlimVirgin July 2, 2005 10:15 (UTC)
- Since this is a wiki, wouldn't it just be easier to un-Cap his objection? I suppose a "influences" section would be good, will do research on ppl who influenced and were influenced by Gauss, though I'm having trouble finding the specific example of Riemann's dissertation, this gets 7 hits, and the only mention of Gauss in those articles are because "Gauss was Riemann's protege"-no mention of Gauss's specific influence, unfortunately. Maybe you could help out here yourself, since you seem like an expert on philosophy? keep in mind also that no Larouche sources are allowed, by wikipedia arbitration , Borisblue 2 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)
- I did not use caps to denote shouting but to make the important above said constructive criticisms more notable to editors interested in improving the article. However, if the use of caps makes some people on Misplaced Pages uncomfortable, I will refrain from using them. Cognition 2 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)
- Cognition, I understand that you're a new user, or at least have a new account, and I don't respect your opinion any the less, but it's not necessary to shout it (=to use caps). Please also look to your tone on the Bertrand Russell vote. And incidentally please note that aggressive edit summaries are an especially bad idea, since they can't be changed if/when you come to realize that they're inappropriate. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 2 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)
- No vote: Not a bad article, still reads a bit fan-boyish, but improving. Can't see any particular reason why it should get FA status though. On the other hand, lots of worse articles are FA, so why not? PS: ignore Cognition, he's just a troublemaker, and almost certainly a reincarnation of a problem user banned some years ago. RK? DK? Some name like that. His style is unmistakable. Tannin 2 July 2005 10:52 (UTC)
- I think it's HK. Thanks for the pointer. On the other hand, can you please state specifically how this article can improved, or what would make it a genuine FA article in your eyes? Borisblue 2 July 2005 11:20 (UTC)
- A fair request, though not an easy one to comply with. I'll try. The article in its present state has most of the ingredients, but it (to my mind) doesn't gell. I think maybe it needs a clearer focus on his achievemts. It tells us that he was important (and very clever), and it lists a great number of achievements, but somehow it doesn't show us his importance. I'm sure that someone trained in the field would see it differently — but that's exactly the point: a FA should appeal to the untrained (but reasonably intelligent) reader just as much as it does to the trained specialist. What were the practical results of his discoveries, what flowed from them? Why was the SI unit named after him? Am I making sense? — Yes, I'm hard to please. But that's excactly the point: it should be hard to get a FA nmination through. To be a FA, it's not enough to have an article with nothing too much wrong with it, it's got to stand out above the crowd. Good luck! Best — Tannin 2 July 2005 11:36 (UTC)
- I agree - this is a legitimate complaint, and the article would be better once it was addressed. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 19:02 (UTC)
- Will do my best. Most of his major contributions are in "pure" matehmatics, though so it might be a bit difficult, epsecially as I am a mathematician, and I don't have the outsider's perspective. Will try to explain his work in more detail, maybe I'll devote a section to it too. Borisblue 3 July 2005 14:27 (UTC)
- Expanded the elaboration of the mathemtaics stuff. You're right, Tannin it isn't good to mention things like the prime number theorem without explanation. Mind having another look at it, and see if there are other aspects of Gauss' work that you feel need further explanation?Borisblue 3 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)
- Will do my best. Most of his major contributions are in "pure" matehmatics, though so it might be a bit difficult, epsecially as I am a mathematician, and I don't have the outsider's perspective. Will try to explain his work in more detail, maybe I'll devote a section to it too. Borisblue 3 July 2005 14:27 (UTC)
- I agree - this is a legitimate complaint, and the article would be better once it was addressed. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 19:02 (UTC)
- A fair request, though not an easy one to comply with. I'll try. The article in its present state has most of the ingredients, but it (to my mind) doesn't gell. I think maybe it needs a clearer focus on his achievemts. It tells us that he was important (and very clever), and it lists a great number of achievements, but somehow it doesn't show us his importance. I'm sure that someone trained in the field would see it differently — but that's exactly the point: a FA should appeal to the untrained (but reasonably intelligent) reader just as much as it does to the trained specialist. What were the practical results of his discoveries, what flowed from them? Why was the SI unit named after him? Am I making sense? — Yes, I'm hard to please. But that's excactly the point: it should be hard to get a FA nmination through. To be a FA, it's not enough to have an article with nothing too much wrong with it, it's got to stand out above the crowd. Good luck! Best — Tannin 2 July 2005 11:36 (UTC)
- I think it's HK. Thanks for the pointer. On the other hand, can you please state specifically how this article can improved, or what would make it a genuine FA article in your eyes? Borisblue 2 July 2005 11:20 (UTC)
- Comment - going back and forth between Braunschweig and Brunswick is rather jarring. Naming convention suggests that we have to list the Duke and the Duchy under the English spelling, but that doesn't mean we have to use it in every article. Guettarda 2 July 2005 14:36 (UTC)
- Changed it all to Brunswick Borisblue 3 July 2005 14:55 (UTC)
- Comment. Although well-written and very interesting, I do not really understand the sentence about "maintaining historical truth".—Theo (Talk) 2 July 2005 23:25 (UTC)
- Me neither. I had to open the link reference to find out. I've reworded it. Thank you! Borisblue 3 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)
- Support. --DanielNuyu 07:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)