Wikipedia:Peer review/Boy's surface/archive1

Boy's surface

I think that this is a fine article, and wish to nominate it for featured-article status. (I did not work on it at all, just stumbled across it, incidentally.) But WP:FAC recommend first putting it up for peer review, so here it is. If anyone sees anything that needs bettering, please advise.—msh210℠ 21:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its just too long. Way to many pictures. The formula could be cut down a lot. More time should be given into distinguishing this from the Roman surface, and more discussion of the real-projective plane to establish context. The other parameterisations as listed on Mathworld should be give, some of these have historical significance. The really important point about this surface is its an immersion of the projective plane and There is also an implicit form

64 (1-z)^3 z^3- 48 (1-z)^2 z^2 (3 x^2+3 y^2+2 z^2)+12 (1-z) z (27 (x^2+y^2)^2-24 z^2 (x^2+y^2)+36 sqrt(2) y z (y^2-3 x^2)+4 z^4)+(9 x^2+9 y^2-2 z^2) (-81 (x^2+y^2)^2-72 z^2 (x^2+y^2)+108 sqrt(2) x z (x^2-3 y^2)+4 z^4)=0;

an example of this can be found at SingSurf.org under classic surfaces. (disclaimer this is a page I've made). --Salix alba (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the proofs off to a proofs page, where they belong. There are not enough references, and those that there are are mis-formatted (should be "author, title, date," etc.). The mathematical definition should preceed the figures, not follow them. Historical discussion is missing. Pretty, but it would have a very very very long haul to get to FA status.linas 05:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]