Talk:Mathematics/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Most of this article is unreferenced. Please reference the paragraphs that don't have any inline citations. Gary King (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm delisting this article since these issues were not resolved. Gary King (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You really think this is appropriate? The idea is to improve articles for readers, not to reference paragraphs where there is no particular advantage in so doing. The article offers 29 inline references. I think you should be more specific; I think you should make a case that something important here has gone unreferenced; and you haven't said anything helpful about what you take "these issues" to be. And you do seem keen to move ahead to a delisting of what is by any standards one of the most prominent articles in the encyclopedia on the minimum scale as far as time and engagement is concerned, at a period when many people may be more concerned about vacations than dealing with opinionated critics. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:CITE and the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. There is plenty of information that is uncited when it should be, including most of Etymology, History, Mathematics as science, Fields of mathematics, and Common misconceptions. The advantage in referencing information is so that it can be verified by readers when they wish to do so. Just because the article has 29 inline references does not mean that this is "enough"; for a 5 kb article, sure it might be sufficient, but it's probably not likely enough for a 100 kb article. It all depends on the specific article. And, why would I be keen in delisting articles? I don't gain anything from it; what I typically do is make a list of articles that I have put up for reassessment, and then just return to them when I have time any time after the standard seven days to make a decision; if there is a discussion going on, then I am willing to let it go on for a much longer period of time—feel free to check my hundreds of reviews, I have never had a problem with delisting an article too early when someone was working on it. Ultimately, good article status is a concern left to editors, not readers; it exists to help editors better improve articles, which is what I try to do when I perform a review. Delisting an article does not change the article at all, from a reader's perspective.

After doing some research, it looks like this article never went through a good article review to begin with. Here is where the article was listed as a good article, sans review. A lack of inline citations was then later brought up at the FAC by several editors. The article Force is a pretty good example of a well-written, well-referenced article in the science field. Gary King (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, this conversation has failed to even consider the relevant citation guideline: WP:SCG. This is unfortunate; a "review" by a single reviewer, without addressing our policy or whether the assertions in question are challenged or likely to be challenged, which is the standard set in actual policy, does not add credibility to GA. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please just have a look at some of the better-referenced articles, such as those in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/FA-Class mathematics articles, for an idea of what I am looking for in terms of referencing. Gary King (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? I looked at Group (mathematics) and see about the same density of citation (including the silly reference to a 1908 edition of Galois for the story of his life. This source is neither contemporary nor current, and in any case unnecessary; none of the aspects likely to be challenged is mentioned). Please specify what statements seem to you challengable and unsourced - as policy requires; this vague hand-waving is no service to anybody. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? Compare Group_(mathematics)#History to Mathematics#History, for instance. If the Sevryuk citation is used for the entire section, then okay, at the very least please copy the citation to the end of each paragraph in the section so that this is clear (it also makes it easier to determine what reference is used for that information if the text is ever changed/moved around). "Etymology" is almost entirely unreferenced, save for the quoted text; surely this information is not common knowledge. Gary King (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Having consulted the OED, I conclude that you have not; whether or not the etymology of mathematics is common knowledge, it (including the reference to mathematiques) is to be found there.

On the other hand, the outline of the evolution of mathematics in the section on History (on that level of generality) is common knowledge, and to be found in any of the sources in the notes. I would think two claims likely to be challenged - and they are the two that have notes.

The idea of repeating a footnote at the end of successive paragraphs is appalling. That's dreadful style, and insisting on it does harm to Wikipedia. I thought that GA could be left to twiddle with its stars and give them out to each other while the rest of us got on with writing an encyclopedia; as Lotte Lenya sang: guess not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. If you don't care about GA status, then why put so much effort into it? Ultimately, as I said earlier, this article was promoted without a review in the first place, so delisting it essentially brings it back to the status that it would have had, anyway. Gary King (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Because I am disappointed. Good Articles could be a useful process if it were conducted as a light process, without a self-important "review" ("I approve this" = GA; "well, actually, it could use work" = not GA; "there, it's better" = GA). This is how it was originally designed.

It could also be a useful process if an intelligent reviewer read the article, (preferably with some knowledge of the subject matter - although a detailed response by someone who didn't could also be very valuable) and saw what could actually be useful to it.

This, however, is neither: I see no sign that Gary King read this article before ten minutes ago; I don't include counting footnotes or other purely mechanical tests - especially when the test is not based on guidelines or on common sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree with my review, you can always renominate the article at WP:GAN or bring it to WP:GAR for a reassessment, similar to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Special relativity/1. Gary King (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I think you are being given a chance to read the section on "Summary style" in WP:SCG where this precise article is named. Let's look

Many articles on broad subjects, such as Albert Einstein, special relativity, big bang, and, indeed, physics and mathematics, have a series of sub-articles. In this case, the summary style may be used, in which a broad overview is given in the main article, and details can be found in subarticles. For citations, the summary style article says:

There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point.'

Therefore I think by asking for inline citations for each para, you are either disregarding this guideline where in terms the point at issue is dealt with, or disqualifiying yourself as a competent reviewer by lack of knowledge of the most relevant material. Please come back with a more considered approach to this article, and the task of assessing it. You are playing one-club golf with a prominent article, and you can be expected to put up a better argument than that this is a fait accompli. Where it says 'specific points', I believe that means you should be conducting this review by means of specific points, where we could have a reasonable discussion on the appropriate level of referencing for a "broad subject". You are not supposed to subvert the spirit of guidelines with such direct application. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's start with the "Mathematics as science" section, particularly the last paragraph. I don't think that most of that information is common knowledge, and so I think that they need inline citations. In addition, the page that you linked to mentions this also:

When adding material to a section in the summary style, however, it is important to ensure that the material is present in the sub-article with a reference. This also imposes additional burden in maintaining Wikipedia articles, as it is important to ensure that the broad article and its sub-articles remain consistent.

Some of the information found in this article's summary-style sections are not found anywhere in their respective main articles, or they are not referenced in both this article and their main article. One example is "In the 18th century, Euler was responsible for many of the notations in use today."; actually, the entire Mathematical notation article only has one reference, and that is only for a single statement. Also, weasel words should be avoided, such as "Many mathematicians feel that...", per WP:CITE#CHALLENGED. (This happens several times in the article.) Gary King (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That is common knowledge - for citations on the subject, see Leonhard_Euler#Mathematical_notation, which is noticeably incomplete. (Summary style does include linked articles, but feel free to add any section header you think actually helpful to readers.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please leave any article on my watchlist alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)