Talk:American Journal of Mathematics

Untitled

Could easily be expanded and should be--Cronholm144 04:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 01:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Today's IP edits

Today's edits by an anonymous IP are against policy and guidelines. Articles on academic journals list the editor in chief, but not other editors and even less so editorial boards. Only in very exceptional cases is it justified to list those people, e.g. if there are independent sources discussing their roles in the journal (as in the case a number of years ago where a complete editorial board resigned from an Elsevier journal to start a competing one). Also, the statement "it is the oldest mathematical journal in the Western Hemisphere in continuous publication. It does not specialize, but instead publishes articles of broad appeal covering the major areas of contemporary mathematics" is unsourced and needs an independent source, otherwise it is just promotional. I kindly request the IP to self-revert. --Crusio (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

COI

The above-mentioned IP seems to be the same person as today's editor, User:Ajm-ed-staff, who according to their user page are the editorial staff of this journal. Please review the appropriate guideline on WP:COI. The edits are against policy and guidelines, use non-standard non-wiki markup, and both the IP and this new editor show signs of WP:OWN. The appropriate thing to do here is that the IP and Ajm-ed-staff refrain from editing this article. Any concerns about the content of the article can be posted here and if meritorious, other editors will make the appropriate changes. --Crusio (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• == ??? ==

Not sure what you mean by "non-standard" markup. Please explain and we will fix it. The content of the article has been edited again to conform to a more neutral point of view. Is factual information (i.e., past editors, ISI data, etc.) against policy? Ajm-ed-staff (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wiki markup is what you get when you use the tools that you see when you get the edit window. However, you used a lot of html-type markup, which is non-standard. The section above on the edits you made as an anonymous IP explains the problems with the other edits. The claim that this is the oldest math journal "in the Western Hemisphere" is weird, even more so because you add that it "is difficult to substantiate". If it cannot be substantiated, it has no place here. --Crusio (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• "weird" claim has been removed. All other information is factual, and the overall content is similar to the entries for other comparable math journals (i.e., Duke, Annals, etc.). will try to remove html tags as well. anything else? Krieger304 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• It may be "factual", but similar to the two articles that you mention it is not. Note, for example, that neither of those list an editorial board. Both only list their chief editors, some notable past editors, and in one case one editorial board member (notable for the long time that he served). The article claims that this is a "general interest journal", which it definitely is not (it's a mathematics journal). It is mentioned that it is ranked 18th by number of citations, I guess because 18 is higher than 22 (rank by IF), but hardly any journal article mentions this (unless perhaps if a journal is the very top for this statistic). The word "journal" should only be capitalized at the start of a sentence or in the full name of the journal. The term "editor-in-chief" should be wikilinked. The caption for the cover image should be removed (the image is so general, that it hardly matters which particular issue it was from and almost no other journal article does this, either, even if they have a different cover for every issue). Me thinks, for an article of a dozen lines, that's enough issues needing correction for the moment. --Crusio (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Additional edits have been made. Thank you for your help. Krieger304 (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Looks much better now. I've done a few final tweaks and removed the maintenance tags. --Crusio (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Great, thanks again! Krieger304 (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)