Talk:Mark Barr

Potential references

"...thanks to American mathematician Mark Barr. He took phi from the initial letter of the name of the Greek sculptor, Phidias..." [1] and the search terms Dr. "Mark Barr" mathematics 1950 provides an obituary in the New York Times for Dec 16, 1950 says, "Dr. Mark Barr, a pioneer electrical editor and physicist, who was born a British subject in Pennsylvania, died yesterday at a home for elderly..." and "In 1895 he took a degree in physics and mathematics at London University. He won the Institution of Electrical Engineers Premium prize and the Paris Gold Medal for his work, and contributed many papers on advanced subjects, including new methods of computing the roots of, equations..." (NYT, Dec 16, 1950) --Dual Freq (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Also: http://books.google.com/books?client=firefox-a&um=1&q=%22Mark+Barr%22+phi ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

All of those books just repeat the same factoid, unsourced as far as I can tell. But it's good you found the NYT obit -- that may be enough to make him notable after all. Dicklyon (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

From that book, it appears that we may learn more from the newspaper the Field around 1912 ([2]) if anyone can find it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dicklyon, can you say more about the Field citation? I can't find it via the link you gave. EEng 17:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

EEng, that book link still works for me. The Curves of Life appendix section II by William Schooling says "I HAVE been asked to give some further account of the φ progression, which was first briefly described in the Field on December 14th, 1912." That's all I know; I'm guess it's a newspaper or magazine; perhaps a math newsletter. Dicklyon (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have access to the full text of the 1950 obituary, it's supposed to be at this link if someone has a web subscription to the NYT online, it would probably fill in the blanks for this stub.--Dual Freq (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• David Eppstein, let's move the discussion here. I'll paraphrase the Times obituary, Dec 16, 1950, p.17, "Mr. Mark Barr":

Pioneer electrical engineer and physicist; born in Pennsylvania but as a British citizen; died in Bronx at 79, living there for some years. British Who's Who listed him as having worked with Tesla and Michael Pupin in NYC before 1900. In 1891 became asst ed. of Electrical World (presumably [3]). "Degree in physics and mathematics at London University", 1895. Won IEE Premium prize and "the Paris Gold Medal". "Many papers on advanced subjects, including new methods of computing the roots of equations. He also pioneered in the field of electrical calculating machinery." Wife Mabel Mary Rickie Barr; sons Philip, Stephen.

So, no formal Harvard connection mentioned, but I note you mention at my Talk that ANW implies Barr was at H Business School, so I will still follow up at Harvard. I'll probably have Architecture tomorrow. EEng 23:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion transferred from User talk:EEng

Do you happen to have access to information about a Mark Barr, who might have been at Harvard around 1924 when Alfred North Whitehead moved there? I can't find much online except for the existence of a letter from Whitehead to Barr about the move. I think this is the same Mark Barr who chose the standard notation for the golden ratio but am not certain because information about him is so sparse. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmm. This isn't an easy one, and it doesn't help that there's a Mark Barr in math or CS currently. I don't find anything related to him in a superficial pass over Harvard's archives search, but I have confess I find that system very frustrating; feel free to give it a try yourself [4] and if you find anything there I'll be happy to follow up on this end. I also found this [5] which may say more about Barr -- hard to tell from the snippet; I assume you can get that yourself, if not let me know.

But there's still hope. There is a giant card index of Harvard everybody up to about 100 years ago, but it has to be searched by hand. If you're not in a hurry I'll check it next time I'm there. Also, in the Architecture article, does it give an affiliation for him? EEng 22:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC) You're a grownup and everything, so consort with whomever you wish, but... Fox News for the history of mathematics?

No hurry, thanks. Unfortunately I can only see the Architecture article in snippet view, but it doesn't seem to show an affiliation. A different page of the same issue (p.48; his article is p.325) calls him a "distinguished mathematician" [6]. I suppose it's possible that he was somewhere else and merely had Harvard connections. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC) It wasn't me! Someone else added that source before I got to the article!

I've paged the Architecture volume -- Harvard has everything, it's disgustingly luxurious. The Lowe work I linked above appears to be on the shelf at Irvine so I'll leave that to you; someone here has it checked out. Listen, did you ever know a David Rector there? EEng 01:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Visiting the library physically — what a concept! I'm not sure — I've met a lot of the mathematicians here and forgotten some of their names — but I think not. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is getting more interesting. You better get Lowe, because looking again at the snippet, it seems to say he was an "electrical engineer who invented a calculating machine..." (and that doesn't rule out a Harvard connection, or the phi thing, though you might consider MIT as well...). Anyway, that leads to [7][8] &c. Just so I understand: (a) You're not sure the Architecture Mark Barr is the same as the Whitehead Mark Barr, and (b) you're not sure the Whitehead Mark Barr was at Harvard? If you get Lowe and I get Architecture (I'll send it to you) we'll know a lot more. Now I'm interested. EEng 02:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

If they are the same person, looks like I may have been right to rip out the claims that he was American from the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a cookbook!

How does someone get to be American from an article? I thought you got that way either by birth or naturalization. Seriously: Note Schooling's talk of calculating machines, and Barr, in his discussion of 𝜙, so certainly the Whitehead-calculator Barr is interested in 𝜙; that helps. Have you been able to see the Cook book? EEng 02:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that one's online at https://archive.org/details/cu31924028937179 — here's a recipe from it. The Schooling reference is definitely about the right Barr, and talks about calculating machines directly before mentioning Barr, so the connection to the inventor is looking very plausible. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Beware, there are two Barrs in Cook's index. EEng 03:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the other one is Archibald Barr. But the text is clear enough about which is which. Given that it consistently refers to them as "Professor Archibald Barr" and "Mr Mark Barr", one may guess that Mark Barr was not a professor. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Searching for "mark barr" + "linotype" turns up a lot of material about patents on engraving machines, as well as this on a device for performing a certain calculation. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Lowe turns out to be a gold mine. p.83 (vol.2) has the snippet you saw, the statement that "Barr and his wife were often at the Whiteheads" (in early-1920s Chelsea London) and that "Three years younger than Whitehead, he was British but at home in New York as well." Pages 133–134 have the story of the early-1924 invitation to Whitehead to move to Harvard, with an explanation of Barr's role: he was living in New York and a friend of Henry Osborn Taylor, a friend of Harvard who financed Whitehead's position there. And later in the volume several letters from Whitehead to his son North (incidentally another Harvard professor whose Wikipedia article is somewhat deficient) mention Barr. Page 302, December 1924 (already at Harvard) has a paragraph about a visiting engineer working for a company interested in buying the rights to Barr's calculating machine.Another letter on p.307 (April 1925) has more on this, and also some family details on the Barrs: Mark Barr's wife's name is Mabel and they have a son Stephen (matching something left by a commenter on the article talk page) and for some reason they're in Elyria, Ohio. Finally, on November 1927 (page 330) we get a third letter where Barr and Whitehead appear to have fallen out. Amid much complaining about Barr's character, Whitehead writes "I am very doubtful whether he will keep his post at the business school here." Presumably this means that he was appointed to the Harvard business school sometime between 1925 and 1927? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• David Eppstein, have you see the Who's Who (mentioned in the NYT obit)? EEng 18:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No. I also would like to find out more about the "IEE Premium" and "Paris Gold Medal" before adding them to the article. By the way, we're right around the 5x expansion mark now. And I've decided that I like your use of {{r}} and moving the references to the end (despite the fact that it prevents some section-only edits because part of the section content is elsewhere) — I just made the same change to North. But the article is still looking like a haphazard collection of anecdotes rather than something with actual structure. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Found the Paris Gold Medal in another obituary — it is for a calculating machine. Will add. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The new JIEE obit has a lot more detail about his early life, and makes it clear that the Linotype Mark Barr is the same as the electrical inventor and friend of Whitehead Mark Barr. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

More possible sources

The phi connection with William Schooling might be clarified in some of the books hits around 1910–1915 here. Dicklyon (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

And some patents on calculating machines: [9], [10], [11], [12]. Dicklyon (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

These are addictive -- the guy was very clever. EEng 04:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Re The Field: in Bridges 2015, Paul Gailiunas ("The Golden Spiral: The Genesis of a Misunderstanding") writes: "After he [Cook] had published Church's theory of phyllotaxis in The Field, William Schooling had written to him with an explanation of the golden section, including a suggestion by Mark Barr that it be called the φ proportion". So unless there is a second publication in The Field, we may be looking in the wrong place for anything more about Barr. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, well let me know if you change your mind. (The phyllotaxis publication does make it seem more likely that I've identified the right Field.) EEng 05:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

IEE membership, and James Mark vs Mark

The JIEE obituary says that Mark Barr became a member of the IEE in 1906. This page of elected members from 1906, however, lists James Mark Barr but not Mark Barr. I have the strong impression that JMB is a different person from around the same time. For instance, everything I see about JMB's contributions involves signal processing, waves, and telegraphy, while MB's work is much more electromechanical. Maybe the obituary claim is a mistake? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but unless important issues hang on the IEE membership question, we can just put it to one side. We may stumble onto something that resolves it. EEng 05:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have to say that this [13] by JMB introduces the tiniest nagging thought that maybe they really are the same person. Note: philosophical introduction, kinda like [14] (though that kind of writing was popular); subject area (engraving, sort of); work with someone at Westinghouse. Note I said tiniest... EEng 02:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• MB was also elected to the Aeronautical Society in 1902 [15]. Is this worth mentioning? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  This patent has him as James Mark McGinnis Barr. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  Nice find! That seems a clear match; it even has the ball bearings (and his mother's maiden name as listed by Who's Who). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Good work, fellow editors! I guess we'll have to re-run a lot of searches, but that's the price of progress. EEng 08:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This paper by JMB has Central Technical College as the affiliation. So unless there were two people by the same name in the same school at the same time (not impossible but unlikely) it's the same guy. I have changed my mind: he seems to have used the "James Mark Barr" name for his student work in the period 1892-1895 at CTC, which was more focused on waves and electromagnetics. I don't see a lot of reason to cite the paper in our article, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Changed your mind about what? Aren't we agreed these are the same guy? EEng 21:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Changed my mind about my initial post in this section, the "strong impression" that JMB (the signal processing guy) was different than MB. They now appear to be the same person writing under slightly different names. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Fibonacci sequences of higher order

In Mathematical Circus p.165 Martin Gardner writes that Mark Barr invented and published in 1913 the "Fibonacci numbers of higher order" described at Generalizations of Fibonacci numbers. I haven't yet added this to the article because I'm hoping to triangulate from more sources, but this seems worth adding both here and at the generalizations article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Still haven't tracked it down, but Gardner writes in a different piece (the Scientific American Vol. II book cited already, p.101): "Stephen Barr, whose father Mark Barr gave phi its name, sent me a clipping of an article by his father (in the London Sketch, about 1913) in which the concept of phi is generalized as follows..." (then proceeding to describe the Fibonacci numbers of higher order). So we're a little closer to an actual citation. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done As mentioned in another thread, I've been through several years of the Sketch but didn't find it. It's possible I missed it so if there's a specific cite I can get it. EEng 00:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The Century

DE, do you have this? If not I'll get it. [16] I think it's him -- from snippet, birthplace Pennsylvania and birthyear are right. EEng 22:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Also it's the journal of the Century Association, which had only 100 members including him. It's definitely him. We have some volumes of that journal but not the right volume. It looks like I could get it through interlibrary loan but if Harvard has it that might be quicker. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Century Club, how clever. On my list. Don't forget the Glass Flowers, if you don't mind. EEng 23:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done (handled in another thread)

EEng's to-get list

•  Not doneField (not pursuing unless we think it's important)
•  Not doneWho's Who from lifetime instead of Who Was Who -- also a pain if we don't know in what year(s) he appeared
• Index at Harvard archives -- Followup: Someone's checking this for me. EEng 01:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Followup: One of my friends in low places has checked -- nothing in the main archives. However, there's a satellite archives at the Business School which I should also talk to. If I don't get back to you by Thursday, remind me. EEng 00:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

David Eppstein - Well, I finally followed up on this, and Harvard Business School shows him as a research assistant there around 1927. And how did we miss this? There are several directions to take this in; I have some special burdens for the next few weeks, and I'll be traveling some, but I'll get to the bottom of this in due course. EEng 20:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

•  DoneThe Century, "The Man and the Turtle" 1929 pp18, 174, 176 Widener P 137.4 (see also email notes) -- Followup: Sent. EEng 01:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Not doneSketch (1913) Getting -- Followup: I spent an afternoon in the British library going over every issue in 1915, coming up goose-eggs. I've now checked a couple of nearby years, still nothing. But it's an uncertain check so I could have missed it. EEng 01:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  DoneDavid Eppstein, you were going to check Lowe's citations to see if any of them are in Harvard Archives. EEng 04:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, thanks for the reminder. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

FTR you got back to me on that elsewhere, reporting that there really aren't any cites along those lines. EEng 01:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mark Barr/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 04:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

GA criteria

Well-written:

With one or two minor grammatical tweaks having been seen to, the article seems to comply with MOS policies for grammar and structural layout. The heading seems appropriate for an article of this size, and also summarizes the basic points made in the body paragraphs and sections. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

After some consultation, I feel that the sourcing in this article is appropriate according to the guidelines. There is also no sign of original research, and the article uses a wealth of reputable sources. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) 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)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

As I think I mentioned recently in one of my other GARs, there's a relative level of subjectivity to the reviewer's assessment of the article's qualification on this particular criterion. That said, I agree with the nominator that as far as covering the grounds goes, one has to account for what reliable sources are available to verify, foremost. On top of that, the reviewer must also decide how satisfactorily informing they find the content as presented, and I personally feel that the article gives a satisfactorily rounded account of Barr's biography, from an encyclopedic standpoint. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Having read over the content of the article, it does not strike me as having a biased tone; when quoting the statements that were mentioned in the additional comments below, it reads as a simple statement that these things were said, nothing more. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

It looks as though the article has not suffered from any edit warring or other disruptive editing behaviours since at least around this time last year, based on a review of the most recent revisions. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

It is obviously always preferable for an article's topic to be illustrated, but seeing as this often is not able to be done, my concern rests with whether or not any images that are used in the article serve a relevant purpose, and are appropriately licensed for their usage. Both these criteria are met by the sole image used in this article at the present time. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

@Wilhelmina Will: Are you planning to come back and evaluate whether it passes the criteria you have listed above, or what needs to be done for it to do so? It's been more than a month. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wilhelmina Will: time for another monthly ping? The torpedo-shooters in the comments below are getting restless. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Reviewer's comments

• For starters, and partly in lieu of the additional commenters' concerns below, does this phrase from the second paragraph of the intro, "...and especially calculating machines" necessarily have to employ the term "especially"? Truth be told, even making this suggestion feels a bit arbitrary, but the term "particularly" used in this instance might come across as a more objective word choice. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Changed "and especially" to "including". —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Second opinion request

As I stated in the criteria list above, at face value I see nothing holding this article back. However, as per the additional comments below, I would appreciate another, previously uninvolved, experienced reviewer's thoughts on how the sources used and the material in the article itself add up, before I make my final decision. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Additional comments by Lingzhi

• @David Eppstein: If you use the scripts I mentioned earlier, the references for this article are drowned in a sea of red ink. Errors abound. Wanna fix? Load scripts to see them. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You're not persuading me that the software you're trying to spam here is useful. Anyone can write scripts that dump red ink all over everything. Whether that red ink indicates actual problems that need fixing is a different question. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

(←) The list of possible errors is on the description pg that was linked here before you deleted the link. This Mark Barr article is actually somewhat better than average, with only the following:

• Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (9 with; 6 without);
• 12 sources are Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
• Mark Barr". Who was who: Missing Year/Date;

Good luck with your nom. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Additional comments by Usernameunique

Having read this article through several times, I do not believe that it is close to GA status. Having also taken a detailed look at its sources, it appears that it would be hard to bring the article to that level. The article has three main problems. First, what Barr is said to be notable for, his work on the golden ratio, is barely discussed in any detail. Second, despite his work on the golden ratio being his apparent claim to notability, the only sources which mention it hardly mention Barr, and the only sources that discuss Barr in any depth do not mention it at all. Finally, an apparent dearth of information about Barr has led to an article that is largely a collection of random, anecdotal, and irrelevant pieces of trivia.

First, though the article treats Barr's work on the golden ratio as his claim to notability, this work is discussed in hardly any detail. The one paragraph that covers this work boils down to two points: 1) Barr did some unspecified work on the golden ratio, and 2) Barr helped name the concept. There's almost nothing else, and a look at the sources shows that he is barely referenced. The first source is literally to the acknowledgements section of somebody else's paper, and the second one has only two passing references to him. Despite it being the crux of Barr's claim to notability, the sentence "By including Barr's notation in his 1914 book on the golden ratio, Cook made it much more widely known" is uncited; if one were to read the sources used in this article independent of the article itself, one would not think that Barr's work on the golden ratio was of any significance. Even when discussing Barr's work on the ratio within the article, his contribution is not stated, his job is never mentioned, his place of employment is omitted, and the time in which he did his work are left out.

Second, the sources used in the article are quite weak. There are only three that discuss Barr in any depth: his eight-sentence obituary in the Times, nine sentences in a trade journal, and half a page afforded in the yearbook of his club. None of these sources mention his work on the golden ratio at all, despite it apparently being Barr's claim to notability. The interesting parts, such as Barr's work with Tesla, are glanced over in the article; the gold medal won in Paris, mentioned in two of his three obituaries, doesn't even make it past the lead. Most of the sources speak of Barr only in passing, in lists, or even in parentheses. Filling the article with these mentions—Barr's failures to sell his inventions, or his "investigation of psychic phenomena"—does little to help either the article or Barr's claim to notability, and if anything, does the opposite.

Finally, this article is almost entirely a collection of disjointed and irrelevant anecdotes. It appears to be an amalgamation of every time Barr's name appears in a source, rather than a distillation of his relevance. Thus we have his social opinion of Thomas Edison, his work as a technical adviser to a random person (or company, it's unclear) named Trevor Williams, his seat on a committee charged with standardizing small screws, his six month stint at a school that shut down, his "inconclusive" results in "an investigation of psychic phenomena", his failed attempt to make synthetic rubber, his creation of a rat trap, his diving trip in Haiti, his thoughts on America, his failure to sell an invention, and—in the final job given for Barr—that he was a research assistant, hardly an indication of notability for one who was then in his 50s. What we don't have is a true indication of who Barr was—was he a "polymath," as the lead claims, or an itinerant jack of all trades and master of none?—any information about the last third of his life, or even a non-primary source for his full name. In removing the "better source" tag that had been placed here, David Eppstein stated that "The better source tag is a GA blocker, and shouldn't be. If you think the better source actually exists, prove it." Yet while a lack of reliable information is always disappointing, this statement gets the GA process backwards; an article is determined to be a good article once it meets the criteria listed at the top of this page, not when its author determines that meeting the criteria is not possible.

There are also smaller problems with the article. For one, assertions are sometimes given a specificity not warranted by the sources, and for another, the final line of the article—"he was born to live in the smoking rooms of intellectual clubs in London or New York"—reads like a compliment, when a look at the source makes clear that this is Whitehead's way of calling Barr irrelevant, not to mention a braggart and a bore. The main problem, however, is that there is barely enough information presented about Barr to sustain a start-class article on him, let alone a good one. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Although Usernameunique is so far the only reviewer to provide substantive in-depth feedback about the article (and thanks for that), this and their previous cleanup-tag spree on the article have the appearance of attempting to torpedo this nomination in retaliation for Template:Did you know nominations/Caroline Brady (philologist), in which I (the nominator of this article) and EEng (the other main contributor to this article) were quite critical of a different article created and nominated for DYK by Usernameunique. To respond to some specific points, though: "Whitehead's way of calling Barr irrelevant, not to mention a braggart and a bore": yes, clearly. But we don't write only about saints here. The same goes for the complaint that Barr did many things of dubious import — we are writing about what the sources tell us about Barr, not about what we would want him to be, and this is supposed to be a nomination for good article, not for a good person. Some more careful attention to the specific GA criteria, and about how well the present writeup meets those criteria, would be more helpful than complaints about Barr's character. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein (and Wilhelmina Will), in response to your request for "more careful attention to the specific GA criteria, and about how well the present writeup meets those criteria," I believe this article is far from broad enough (GA criterion #3), is not verifiable and suffers from original interpretations (#2), and is not neutral (#4). The reasons why are discussed in depth above. David, Barr's character is irrelevant, as you say, but his notability (or lack thereof), the article's highlighting of a claim that the sources don't support, and the fact that a quotation is taken so out of context as to reverse its meaning, are all problems that have not been addressed other than by questioning my good faith. Yet if this were true (n.b. the edit summaries for my contributions to the article show many improvements and corrections), you would undoubtedly be able to explain why the problems I described with the article are not issues at all. You yourself termed the article "a haphazard collection of anecdotes rather than something with actual structure" just last year. Many more anecdotes have been added since, but if anything, the fundamental issues with the article have only multiplied. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

"Broad enough" means that it covers the topics that can be sourced, not the topics that have no sources but you would like some mythical source fairy to provide sources for. And how can you simultaneously infer the intended meaning of the quote and argue that the article makes the meaning impossible to infer? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

In response to your question, David Eppstein, there's no inference; I obtained the source from my library. In full: "My private opinion is that Mark is going to pieces—or rather, that for years he has gone to pieces. I am very doubtful whether he will keep his post at the Business School here. His habit of exploiting his friendships, chiefly by way of borrowing but also in other ways, is getting him into difficulties. Anyhow, he will have another chance. But his vanity, and his habit of gaseously showing off in conversation, make him a bad colleague so far as I can judge from what I hear. He was born to live in the smoking rooms of intellectual clubs in London or New York." --Usernameunique (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

For fuck's sake

I just stumbled on this review, which is completely out of control now.

• Lingzhi's list has nothing to do with anything.
  • Publisher locations don't have to be used consistently
  • "Identifier/control numbers" don't have to be supplied
  • I can't make sense of the complaint about Who Was Who
• I have no problem asserting that Usernameunique's TLDR nonsense above is motivated by resentment over Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Caroline_Brady_(philologist). All that's needed to see that is his/her disingenuous statement that You yourself [i.e. David Eppstein] termed the article "a haphazard collection of anecdotes rather than something with actual structure" just last year. Yeah... last year -- when the article was 325 words [17]; it's now 1200 words [18]. Like I said: disingenuous.
  • The criticism about the "Born to live" quotation is valid, but easily fixed: I've removed it.
  • The rambling about notability shows misunderstanding of notability criteria; if UNunique wants to take this to AfD, we'll all get a good laugh.
  • As to the rambling about what's missing: we can only write up what sources tell us. Much of Barr's life is a mystery.

The GA criteria (which are intentionally narrow) are met, and the reviewer says so. End this circus. Drmies, perhaps you can supply the second opinion the reviewer has requested. EEng 05:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Ha, I remember that DYK! Drmies (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• OK, I got some comments (and you can see I made some minor edits as well). To start with Ling.nut's list, I would also be bothered by inconsistent citations: adding publisher's locations is an easy fix and keeps the commentator happy--it's like rubbing a chicken with oil before roasting (good for both cook and chicken). So add New York for Putnam in note 20, etc. I do NOT see the need for identifier/control numbers, not at all. But what is that "tag" in the "Selected publications"? Finally, the "Who was who" thing--Who's who is typically not accepted here; I never accept it. Plus, the only thing you need it for is the names of his parents. I'd cut that, but maybe it doesn't bother Wilhelmina Will, in which case it's fine. Finally, the critique that it's a concatenation of anecdotes--well, my life is too, and this one is better-sourced than mine. Yes, it's on the anecdotal side, by which I don't mean that the events are trivial but rather that a sort of overall narrative/biographical arc is missing. In part that's because of the sections, and this is always a tough choice: if the best-attested part is someone's work, do you lift that out of the chronology or not? The more information you have, the quicker one should do that.

  So, my dear EEng, here's the thing, and this is maybe not what you're looking for, but I think I'm meeting you halfway. If you take the entire Golden Ratio section, and the Other inventions section, out of that chronology and move it down, and replace them with a sourced platitude or two that addresses, generally, his life and career, I'd pass this without a problem. In other words, I do not agree with the critique that this is "just" a bunch of factoids, but I do think that the critique can be undercut by a slight structural shift. That's all I can do for you now--gotta get to work. Henry Louis Gates Jr. today. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, David Eppstein, you've got a light at the end of the tunnel. EEng 21:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: you mean something like this? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This will be my final comment here.

1) The idea that Barr was known, or notable, for his work on the golden ratio is still unsupported; it's not even in his obituaries. Much as it appears to be the interest of the authors of this article, it properly belongs with the other anecdotes if anywhere. Drmies, I'm not sure if that's what you're suggesting or not when you say to "move it down."

2) EEng#s, the part of my statement that you did not quote was the part that said "Many more anecdotes have been added since, but if anything, the fundamental issues with the article have only multiplied." That's directly responsive to what you say I ignored, i.e., that "the article was 325 words; it's now 1200 words." Further, you may recall doubts about Barr's notability on the talk page, for you yourself replied underneath them. If there is any disingenuousness here, it is not mine.

This has been an unpleasant experience. Good luck with the rest of the article and review. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

1) Barr isn't notable for his work on the golden ratio. He's notable for the coverage he's received.

2) I must have missed that other part of what you said in your huge wall of text.

This has been unpleasant for other people than you, since you bring it up. No one wants their time wasted this way. And don't change others' fucking section headings [19], or you'll get a real crash course in how Wikipedia works. EEng 22:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

(Since this is a new issue, I'm responding only to say that changing the section heading was not intentional. I changed it in my edit summary (didn't feel the need to repeat it), and I think that somehow changed it above—either that, or something to do with the edit conflict when I tried to post the first time. Couldn't replicate it in WP:Sandbox so I'm unsure what exactly happened, but nonetheless I meant only to modify the heading in my own edit summary. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC))

@Drmies and Wilhelmina Will: Could either of you take a look at the article now, and provide any final feedback before the article can be passed or failed? TheDragonFire (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better now, and I feel the discussion and modifications have addressed my concerns, and the others. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

It's been a long, long time coming, but I believe in the end it was worth it. I believe the article in its present state fully satisfies the GA criteria, and am passing it on those grounds. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! After all that, thanks. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This article needs an infobox

Just pointing it out. Weird it's lacking in a "Good Article" --Loganmac (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

No article needs an infobox, and having an infobox is specifically not one of the Good Article criteria. See also WP:DISINFOBOX — very frequently, the addition of an infobox makes an article worse, not better. Also, WP:ALLROADSLEADTOINFOBOXES. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Not judging good article criteria man, just pointing out I found it weird since I'm certain it's the first notable biography I've seen without one. That's all. --Loganmac (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)