| Revision as of 01:20, 1 July 2005 editDeryckchan (talk | contribs)287 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:31, 1 July 2005 edit undoCognition (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users999 edits →[]: objectNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| **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) | ||
| *''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) | |||
Revision as of 23:31, 1 July 2005
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)
- 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)
- In what way exactly?, it seems great to me Giano | talk 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. Deryck C. 2005-07-01 01:20:10 (UTC)
- In what way exactly?, it seems great to me Giano | talk 30 June 2005 18:55 (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. Cognition 1 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)