A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | CH | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
Kept
- 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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC) .
Group (mathematics)
- Notified:Jakob.scholbach ,David Eppstein, , WP Math, talk page notice 2021-04-20
I am nominating this featured article for review because the article was promoted in 2008 and current FA requirements are more demanding particularly with regard to citations, which are lacking for sections of this article. Graham Beards (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Graham Beards I notified WikiProject Math. Also, FAR recently went back from a one-week wait period to a two-week wait after notifying the talk page (some editors did not realize this), so this FAR might be a week early. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Math is a little different, as some of the math stuff is probably self-proving per WP:WTC. But there is some stuff in here that's not self-proving that ought to have citations, such as "Further abstract algebraic concepts such as modules, vector spaces and algebras also form groups" or "Such spontaneous symmetry breaking has found further application in elementary particle physics, where its occurrence is related to the appearance of Goldstone bosons.". Hog Farm Talk 16:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- The Goldstone claim needs a citation, but modules, vector spaces, and algebras are very basic algebraic structures that extend groups by adding more structure, as anyone with any familiarity of those concepts would already know, so that statement is not so much a claim as a pointer to closely related topics, much like an article on lions would probably have a sentence mentioning tigers and leopards. When asked for what specifically needed citation on the article talk page, the nominator, Graham Beards, was non-responsive. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: - Would it be effective to on a talk page somewhere for me to come up with statements that might need citations, so there's at least an clear idea about what needs done here? Hog Farm Talk 17:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've given a few examples of statements that may need citations on talk. Many paragraphs will fall squarely under 'domain-specific knowledge', and won't need citations. I don't quite have that knowledge, having taken only a bit of group theory at uni. More input welcome :). FemkeMilene (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for those examples, FemkeMilene. Overall, I think the article is in pretty good shape. A little rephrasing and footnoting here and there, and I'd be happy with it. Also, it seems to have accumulated references in a few different styles; those should be made uniform. XOR'easter (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've given a few examples of statements that may need citations on talk. Many paragraphs will fall squarely under 'domain-specific knowledge', and won't need citations. I don't quite have that knowledge, having taken only a bit of group theory at uni. More input welcome :). FemkeMilene (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: - Would it be effective to on a talk page somewhere for me to come up with statements that might need citations, so there's at least an clear idea about what needs done here? Hog Farm Talk 17:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- The Goldstone claim needs a citation, but modules, vector spaces, and algebras are very basic algebraic structures that extend groups by adding more structure, as anyone with any familiarity of those concepts would already know, so that statement is not so much a claim as a pointer to closely related topics, much like an article on lions would probably have a sentence mentioning tigers and leopards. When asked for what specifically needed citation on the article talk page, the nominator, Graham Beards, was non-responsive. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Math is a little different, as some of the math stuff is probably self-proving per WP:WTC. But there is some stuff in here that's not self-proving that ought to have citations, such as "Further abstract algebraic concepts such as modules, vector spaces and algebras also form groups" or "Such spontaneous symmetry breaking has found further application in elementary particle physics, where its occurrence is related to the appearance of Goldstone bosons.". Hog Farm Talk 16:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- My first impression is that the examples and applications section could do with making the examples more accessible. I looked in particular at Group (mathematics)#Symmetry_groups and saw that there were no elementary examples of what symmetry groups were (it talks about symmetry groups being "of geometric nature" before moving to the advanced topic of symmetries of polynomials), and then when it talked about molecular symmetry it talks about advanced topics such as phase transitions without bread-and-butter matters such as them being useful to chemists in predicting the properties of simple molecules. I'll look at other sections, but my guess is that if such an expositional gift of a topic as permutation groups runs before it walks, I'll see the same disease elsewhere. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- In fact, the article opens with an elaborate example of a symmetry group, the symmetry group of a square. I don't know how much more introductory you want things to be there. The symmetries of polynomials are explained further down in the section on Galois groups. Again, this is as introductory as it can be.
- That said, groups just so ubiquitous, so that it is impossible to both cover a reasonable broadness, and at the same time be introductory (or non-shallow!). We do have a lot of introductory content early on, some of the later sections are less so. IMO, this is fully deservedly so. You might want to familiarize with the lengthy(!) discussions at the FA nomination. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- You are quite right: I was thrown off by the language "introductory symmetry group". I've rephrased this sentence so the connection to the examples section and the later section on Galois theory is clearer. I'm still not happy with this subsection: geometric symmetry groups are huge in physics and chemistry and I think this isn't really made clear, but I've looked at the other subsections in examples and applications and I find them much better. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)reply
- Update: first set of comments has been addressed, and I've added a second set. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Update: second set has mostly been addressed, would welcome fresh set of eyes. Hog Farm, did you want to have a look still? FemkeMilene (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- @Femkemilene: - Yeah, I'll take a look. I've never been taught group theory (and I graduate from college this month, so kudos to the America education system), so I'll likely to come across as completely clueless here. Hog Farm Talk 20:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- @Femkemilene and Hog Farm: Update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- My remarks have been addressed, but the article editors have been identifying and solving more issues that go over my head: @David Eppstein, @Jakob.scholbach: could you give an update? I'll have a final look over the article when you're done. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- In my mind, this article does not imperatively need any further substantial edits to have FA-level. Unless I am overlooking something the only "open" point is that Quondum raised the idea of reworking through two subsections (see talk). I have voiced my dissent with their ideas there on talk, and prefer not to implement Quondum's suggestion there, but in any cases this would be a smaller-scope edit and nothing that would require upholding a decision of the FA status of this article. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- I agree with Jakob on this. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- In my mind, this article does not imperatively need any further substantial edits to have FA-level. Unless I am overlooking something the only "open" point is that Quondum raised the idea of reworking through two subsections (see talk). I have voiced my dissent with their ideas there on talk, and prefer not to implement Quondum's suggestion there, but in any cases this would be a smaller-scope edit and nothing that would require upholding a decision of the FA status of this article. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- I think my concerns have been addressed, although 95% of this article went straight over my head, so I don't feel confident giving an opinion on this. Hog Farm Talk 16:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- My remarks have been addressed, but the article editors have been identifying and solving more issues that go over my head: @David Eppstein, @Jakob.scholbach: could you give an update? I'll have a final look over the article when you're done. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- @Femkemilene and Hog Farm: Update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- I'm happy to close without farc for one thing. The first two sentences are too complicated imo. The article overall does a good job being understandable, but I think the starts let's us down.
- In mathematics, a group is a set equipped with a binary operation that combines any two elements to form a third element in such a way that conditions called group axioms are satisfied, namely associativity, identity and invertibility. These conditions are familiar from many mathematical structures, such as number systems: for example, the integers endowed with the addition operation form a group.
- Both are a bit too long
- I think that 'combines any two elements to form a third element' explains the word 'binary', right? If so, can we drop it to avoid starting with jargon?
- the 'called group axioms' can be moved to the second sentence maybe to shorten the first.
- I think having such as and for example in close proximity is poor prose.
- Is there is an easier synonym for endowed?
- In mathematics, a group is a set equipped with a
binaryoperation that combines any two elements to form a third element in such a way that three conditionscalled group axiomsare satisfied, namely associativity, identity and invertibility. These conditions, called group axioms, are familiar from many mathematical structures such asnumber systems: for example,the integers endowed with the addition operation form a group. - Neither an expert, nor a prose genius here, so happy for others to have a go. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- I have incorporated your suggestions. About the binary operation: in a way this "jargon" was explained right after, so I think this is an OK approach. But since it is not absolutely crucial to mention the word binary there I followed your idea and dropped it. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Close without FARC: brilliant work :). FemkeMilene (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)reply
@Graham Beards: - As nominator, do you have anything further to add here? Hog Farm Talk 19:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- They indicated on their talk page they wanted to stand back from the review: User_talk:Graham_Beards#Group_FAR. FemkeMilene (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Removededit
- 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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC) 4.
Tamil languageedit
- Notified: Sundar, WikiProject India, WikiProject Languages, WikiProject Sri Lanka, WikiProject Mauritius, diff for talk page notification
Review sectionedit
I am nominating this featured article for review because as Hog Farm noted on the talk page a month ago, there is lots of unsourced content and so far no one tried to fix it. (t · c) buidhe 17:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Move to FARC not enough work is being done. Link20XX (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Move to FARC - nothing really happening. Hog Farm Talk 17:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
FARC sectionedit
- Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Delist no edits made in over a week. Link20XX (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Delist - no real engagement, significant outstanding issues. Hog Farm Talk 05:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Delist per above (t · c) buidhe 15:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC) 5.
NeXTedit
- Notified: WikiProject Apple Inc., WikiProject Computing, 3-29-21
Review sectionedit
This is another promotion from the late 2000s that would be quickfailed if reviewed by today standards. Its nominator and the one that promoted it to FA status has been inactive on Wikipedia since 2015, which means I didn't notify them. The problems with this article boil down to the fact that it's not well put together. Uncited statements (even paragraph-long uncited material) abound, there is essential info in its lead (and even quoteboxes) that should be in the body but isn't, and its prose suffers from tech jargon either not elaborated or linked to another article; what is a workstation? "general-purpose DSP chip"? "programming environment standard"? "application layer"? "vector drawing program"? Additionally, it has scant retrospective analysis, which including it would really help its seemingly lackluster Legacy section. Other indicators this needs a copyedit. A subsection "1996–97: purchase by Apple" talks about many things that occurred after that, as late as 2001, meaning its subsection name is blatantly wrong 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
- @WP:FAR coordinators: can this be put on hold or removed until the notification period has passed? HumanxAnthro, is there a reason you did not follow the FAR instructions on the two to three week wait after notification? Also, a nominator inactive since 2015 should be notified anyway; they may still follow their talk page or have talk page stalkers with similar content-area interests. Also, there are several other active editors in the edit count tool who could be notified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
- Wait, you said the guidelines were one week after notification, not "two to three." Wait, what? 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
- No, I didn’t say that (and that one should have been removed, too). I asked then if there had been another notification more than a week ago, and Femke mentioned there was one ten days ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
- Wait, you said the guidelines were one week after notification, not "two to three." Wait, what? 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
- Move to FARC, no action. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Move to FARC - no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 03:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
FARC sectionedit
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose, structure and comprehensiveness. DrKay (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Lack of sources aside, I'm not set on the sources that are included. These are old, so I may just be insufficiently informed but sites like these look self-published and this looks like a Blogspot blog. Additionally, to show how little this page has been maintained over the last decade, one of the source titles was "The heart of a new machine (frogdesign for NeXT computer)hi" and had been like that for seven years. Delist. This wouldn't pass GAN. Anarchyte (talk • work) 13:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Delist per Anarchyte. Significant work needs done, and engagement is minimal. Hog Farm Talk 17:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Delist Sources are severely lacking. ~ HAL333 02:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- The "Background" section has a "citation needed" in one of the paragraphs. LucianoTheWindowsFan (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Delist per Anarchyte. Link20XX (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC) 6.
Seattleedit
- Notified: Michael Snow, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Washington, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Seattle, diff for talk page notification
Review sectionedit
I am nominating this featured article for review because, as noted by RetiredDuke a while back on the talk page, the article has issues with needing citations, bloat (11,500 words readable prose), image sandwiching, and lack of updating. The stuff that is sourced looks mostly OK, so I think the article is fixable but it will take a considerable amount of work. (t · c) buidhe 02:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I added a heading that says the article needs some updating, so that people would know. Blue Jay (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Any updates on progress so far? Blue Jay (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- It looks like SounderBruce has fixed some of the cn tags—which is great!—but there are still a lot of them as well as sections tagged needing update (t · c) buidhe 03:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - Just FYI there will be new demographic information on Seattle released on May 27th from the US 2020 Census, which should be incorporated. Mattximus (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
FARC sectionedit
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Delist - significant issues remain, and little improvement has occurred since SounderBruce fixed some of the CN tags bag in April. Things seem to have stalled out. Hog Farm Talk 23:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Delist, stalled progress, and probably too much to do in the course of a FAR anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Delist per above. (t · c) buidhe 00:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC) 7.
Dartmouth Collegeedit
- Notified: Kane5187, ElKevbo, Esrever, Contributor321, Hal333, WP New Hampshire, WP Dartmouth, WP Higher Education, talk page notice 2020-11-30
Review sectionedit
This is a 2007 FA that has not been maintained to FA standards, and that has not been improved since the talk page notice six months ago. Issues include poor image layout, out of control galleries, listiness and single-sentence paragraphs, citation overkill, incomplete citations, dated information, uncited text, inadequate use of summary style (especially noticeable in the alumni section), and the lead reads as promotional rather than a summary of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Comments from HAL333
- Images lack alt text.
- The largest problem is the near complete reliance on primary sources published by Dartmouth.
- Most, if not all, of the citations in the lede should be removed per WP:LEADCITE.
Those are the most glaring big picture issues I see. ~ HAL333 21:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)reply
- Move to FARC - no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 20:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Move to FARC Agree with Hog Farm. ~ HAL333 23:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
FARC sectionedit
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, organization and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Delist Lots of issues with sourcing. None have been addressed. ~ HAL333 01:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Delist - lots of work needed; basically no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Delist, significant unaddressed issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC) 8.
Theramenesedit
- Notified: Robth, WP Biography, WP MILHIST, WP Politics, WP Classical Greece and Rome, WP Greece, 2020-12-26
Review sectionedit
One of the oldest ones remaining on the list at WP:URFA/2020, this 2006 promotion is not at current FA sourcing standards. Large chunks of the article (including entire paragraphs and the entire overthrowing the democracy section) are sourced only to ancient sources. While primary sources are okay in light doses in FAs, use of ancient sources need to be careful, and they are overused here. Hog Farm Talk 01:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)reply
- Move to FARC So significant edits since notice has been placed on talk, this will need new sources to replace the overreliance on primary documents. Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Move to FARC - no engagement. All edits since May 2020 are either gnoming, category, or formatting edits. Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)reply
FARC sectionedit
- Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Delist. T8612 (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Delist - systematic sourcing issues, no edits since March. Hog Farm Talk 21:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Delist Still too dependent on primary sources. ~ HAL333 01:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC) 9.
Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/May_2021
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.
Antropológia
Aplikované vedy
Bibliometria
Dejiny vedy
Encyklopédie
Filozofia vedy
Forenzné vedy
Humanitné vedy
Knižničná veda
Kryogenika
Kryptológia
Kulturológia
Literárna veda
Medzidisciplinárne oblasti
Metódy kvantitatívnej analýzy
Metavedy
Metodika
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative
Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších
podmienok.
Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky
použitia.
www.astronomia.sk | www.biologia.sk | www.botanika.sk | www.dejiny.sk | www.economy.sk | www.elektrotechnika.sk | www.estetika.sk | www.farmakologia.sk | www.filozofia.sk | Fyzika | www.futurologia.sk | www.genetika.sk | www.chemia.sk | www.lingvistika.sk | www.politologia.sk | www.psychologia.sk | www.sexuologia.sk | www.sociologia.sk | www.veda.sk I www.zoologia.sk