Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/0.999.../archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 15:06, 31 August 2010 [1].

0.999...

edit

0.999... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Melchoir, AzaToth Wikiproject Mathematics

I would like to put up this article for review because I feel that since the four years that it became a featured article in 2006 that it has gone unmaintained and has lost some of the features then that made it the featured article that it once was. A couple of my concerns are:

  • There are a few redlinks in the article.
  • There are a few external links within the article content.
  • The references may have rotted. (example)
  • There is not enough of a balance between words and numbers.

:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Red links are not part of the FA criteria. External links in the body of the article can easily be moved to the proper section or removed. Link rot is a valid concern, but we don't need an FAR to fix the dead links. As for problems with the "balance between words and numbers", you'll have to be more specific. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about the red links as well, Ic no problems with them. The reference rot i don't quite get? What's that supposed to mean exactly? One concern I see however, is that the reference list is imho way to long in particular since there is further reading section as well. The references should be integrated into the footnotes if they are used as actual sources or otherwise removed for the most part, I see no point in listing various well known math who deal with the article content mostly as a sidenote only. The not enough balance between word and numbers I don't quite get either.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the only inline link I could find – as far as I can see the rest are in the references – and I think the only dead link (in two places). I can't see any other link that's broken – the example you give is to a paper behind a paywall but that's true of most of the academic references. As for balance between words and numbers I too am not sure what you mean: maths articles tend to be formula and number-heavy, usually more so than this one.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The References section is for sources that are cited in the footnotes. The Further reading section is for potential sources that are not cited. More information is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout). Melchoir (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, in this case the article uses the notes for the footnotes and references is mostly a collection of general or additonal references. In any case imho that list way too long and mostly unnecessary.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For example? Melchoir (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for example what?--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
an example of an item in the References section that isn't cited in a footnote Melchoir (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please see here for further deadlinks (check for the ones in red). Dana boomer (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any in red. There were two in orange:
http://arxiv.org/abs/math.NT/0605182 - which gives an abstract to the article and a PDF download link, I'm not sure why it's flagging it
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/berz92automatic.html - fixed --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do see one in red, but I do not see why it is red. The link works fine. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There don't seem to be any dead links in the article at the moment. Ucucha 12:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User images don't usually require sourcing, as per WP:OI. It says "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". Good images in articles in abstract maths topics like this are invariably created by users, as photos are no use to illustrate the topic and scans from e.g. textbooks are too low quality. As for licences any free licence is fine.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The policy I've referenced is WP:IUP. I'm not talking about the subject matter being illustrated; I'm talking about the illustration itself; WP:OI is not germane. Эlcobbola talk 15:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from WP:IUP: "A good source for a self-created image is to state "It is my own work." and not just use a tag that indicates it is your own work ({{self}} or {{PD-self}} for examples)." Sp assuming that Melchoir created these images, then Melchoir must state so, presumably on the files "Summary" section? Paul August ☎ 16:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. That's all that's needed. Эlcobbola talk 16:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ WP:IUP does not require it, but recommends it. That means the point 3.) is satisfied, i.e. the pictures are in line with WP:IUP, they simply do fall under the category "good source", which however is completely different from failing WP:IUP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see this as a recommendation not a requirement (my "must" above meant in order to satisfy Эlcobbola's concern.) Paul August ☎ 16:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See number two under "Requirements" at IUP: "Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer." A template that says "I, the copyright holder..." does not satisfy either: declaration that you hold the copyright does not address the origin ("where the image came from"). Declaration that you hold the copyright does not address verifiability. This has been in the policy for years; it's not creeping. Эlcobbola talk 16:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it seems like a silly recommendation, given that the self template says "I, the copyright holder of this work" in boldface. Sounds like WP:IUP is instruction creeping. In any case, I've added the requested notes. Melchoir (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I don't see much wrong with this, and certainly nothing that justifies an FAR being initiated. In fact I think it's quite good, and pretty approachable for a mathematical topic; I enjoyed reading it and I learned something. Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Additional closing note - This is being closed per the comments of several editors who, having performed checks on the article, have noted that they don't believe a full FARC is necessary. Dana boomer (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/0.999.../archive1&oldid=1066416819"