Talk:Ron Larson

Peacock wording

There is a fair amount of subjective peacock wording that needs to be rewritten in a neutral way. For example

• ... that started Ron's dream of writing textbooks ...
• ... has been one of America's most prolific authors ...
• ... Ron's passion for writing student-friendly mathematics textbooks ...

In addition, most of the "Ron"s should probably be changed to "Larson". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a good start for an article, but it's written as though for a popular magazine rather than an encyclopedia. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

B-Class check

As requested, I have assessed this article for B-Class standards. Although there are a few small issues, it is nearly there. Well done with all the work! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.

   Y Sufficient for B-Class. Will probably require more rigorous sourcing for Good Article standard. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.

   Y There is certainly enough information here and nothing obvious seems to be missing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

3. The article has a defined structure.

   The lead and organisation into headings are fine. I am concerned that the long lists of publications detracts from the flow of the article and question whether all these need to be included. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

4. The article is reasonably well-written.

   In general, the article is written very well. In some places however, the prose seems slightly subjective and/or not neutral. For example:

   The traditional role of a textbook author is to write and prepare the manuscript and then later to proof the designed and typeset pages. Early in Larson's career, he decided to become more involved than this.

   This is not appropriate because it seems to present Larson's own ideas. It is better to stick to the facts. Also, the heading "Commitment to education" might be seen as non-neutral. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.

   Y The pictures are good and the infobox is fine. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

6. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way.

   Y All written in clear and straightforward language. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

some Problems

1. The photo of his family certainly does not belong here--we have one of him, and I have strong doubts about the one for his company's building and for the one with his co-author. The inclusion of such extraneous photos is the visual equivalent of PEACOCK.
2. As he is known as a textbook writer, not a research mathematician, the inclusion of the list of his papers is inappropriate.
3. We normally combine multiple vols. of books , as Title of Book.; I, II, and III. On the other hand, we do indicate the number of editions--its relevant to their importance.

DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not seeing any response, I have edited accordingly. The excessive detail here is not encyclopedic DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Ron Larson (mathematician) → Ron Larson – primary topic for this article title. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment this is an improperly formatted multimove request. The other request is located at Talk:Ron Larson. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  Sure. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  • It's not just bureaucracy - combining the two would mean we only have to comment in one place instead of two. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

    Well, whatever. I haven't done any of these in a while, and I didn't feel like looking everything up. I'm tired, been working like a dog, and I have a calculus test tomorrow that I'm all stressed out about. Snide comments about the request being improper... well, that just doesn't deserve much of a reply anyway. Things like that piss me off. <shrug>
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Neutral. There's only slightly more pages that link to this guy than to the other one. I don't know which field is the narrower, mathematics or design – and I don't know whether that's relevant in this context. Why not have Ron Larson as a dab page? Like it says in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "If there is no primary topic, the ambiguous term should be the title of a disambiguation page". HandsomeFella (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  There may be almost equal sources online, but in the printed world this Ron Larson absolutely devastates the other one. The guy has published hundreds of textbooks over decades of time, and those textbooks have been very high selling items. There certainly should be at least a dab page, but it's clear to me that this article meets the requirements to be the primary topic easily.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  Okie dokie. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I was going to oppose on the assumption that both are too obscure for either to be primary, but decided to check page view stats. Clearly, we have a primary topic here, as proposed, and following WP:How2title. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, seems important enough. I've put in place a temporary disambiguation page.Marcus Qwertyus 01:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

June 2011 Page view statistics

• Ron_Larson_(mathematician) has been viewed 700 times in 201106. [1]
• Ron_Larson has been viewed 92 times in 201106. [2]

Note that the mathematician gets 7 times as many hits despite the artist being at the base name (which means anyone searching directly for "Ron Larson" is going to that page). So it's probably safe to assume that a significant number of the artist's 92 views are unintended. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Future works

So there's an anonymous edit just appeared which details a work coming out in 2013. Seriously?!? --Matt Westwood 19:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)