Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edward Wright (mathematician)

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Edward Wright (mathematician) edit

— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC) (nominator; article created by Jheald and expanded by both of us)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several pages from the same book are used as references multiple times. Perhaps merge them together using WP:REFNAME?
    • Comment: I have tried to do that, but I feel it is more useful to state the page or paragraph where a fact is mentioned wherever possible. — JackLee, 01:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then I don't think you understand the concept of reference names? Please read the linked article; the references will stay exactly the same – only the Reference section will shrink, making it easier to read through. Gary King (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I think we're not understanding each other. I've used reference names where I can, but sometimes a footnote may contain text additional to the reference, in which case the reference needs to be stated at the end. Footnote 14 is an example of this: "Parish register, London, St. Michael Cornhill, 8 August 1595, GL [marriage]: see Apt, "Wright, Edward", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography." Other times, I've indicated "Parsons & Morris, p. 71" rather than using a reference name as I want to indicate that the information in the article comes from a specific page of the source. Can you point out some examples where you think reference names might be used? — JackLee, 12:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm pretty sure we are not understanding each other, then. References like the following can be merged using reference names so they don't appear twice or more—it doesn't change any of the meaning in your referencing because they are the exact same references: "Parsons & Morris, p. 61." (appears at least five times); "Parsons & Morris, p. 71." (appears at least twice); "Parsons & Morris, p. 69." (appears at least three times); and "Parsons & Morris. p. 70." (appears at least three times). These references that appear multiple times can be merged using reference names. Gary King (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fixed: Oh, right! For some reason, that never occurred to me. — JackLee 01:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use an en dash for " pp. 550-551" per WP:DASH
  • "per kilometre)." → "per kilometer)." if you are going to use American spelling
    • The article is about an Englishman. Why would it want to use an American spelling? WP doesn't. -- Jheald (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You tell me. There are far more words that are spelled the American way than the British way – fix them. Gary King (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Examples? I'm evidently not seeing them. Jheald (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Some examples (this list is not at all exhaustive): "recognize", "program" Gary King (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks. "Recognized" changed to "recognised". (Not actually wrong in UK English; but eg news.bbc.co.uk prefers "recognise" by 66,000 to 2,600). "Program" not changed: in UK English a concert programme, but a computer program (usually). Jheald (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, that is fair enough. I will cap this now. Gary King (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment: Personally I prefer the word ending –ize as it's more etymologically correct, but it's no biggie to me. — JackLee 01:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - prose is generally excellent, some things below:

  • Non-breaking space between unit and measurement in the Surveying section, not a hyphen or space, please.
  • In the same section, since the measurements are in the main text, the units should be spelled out, not abbreviated.
  • Same British/American thing as Gary King - change "organise" to "organize".
    • Comment: see Jheald's response to Gary King above. — JackLee, 01:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy: "Wright was prompted to publish the book after two incidents of his text, which had been prepared some years earlier"
    • Meaning would be different. "Some years earlier" correctly implies, say, 4-5 years earlier; "years earlier" suggests much more than this. Jheald (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as above: "Apart from a number of other books and pamphlets [...]"
  • Same as above: "it corrected a number of errors in the earlier work"
    • Same as above: "a number of" correctly conveys that the number is relatively small. Jheald (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The stoppage has been attributed to a number of factors, including Myddelton facing difficulties in raising fund" -> "The stoppage has been attributed to factors such as...."
  • The first sentence is a fragment.
    • Comment: if you're referring to the first sentence of the "Surveying" section, it follows from the previous section. — JackLee, 01:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I mean the first sentence of the lead. Read the whole thing carefully. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 19:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Possibly it might be rewritten; but I don't see a fragment there (main verb: was; relative clause which ... 75°, describing the book). What are you identifying as the fragment? Jheald (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Apart from other books and pamphlets, Wright translated into English John Napier's 1614 Latin work which introduced the idea of logarithms." - awkward. Suggest rephrasing as "Apart from other books and pamphlets, Wright translated John Napier's 1614 work on logarithms from Latin to English."
    • But that loses the important point about 1614 work - before the book introduced them in 1614, nobody imagined logarithms might exist; it was a revolutionary step forward. Jheald (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about "Apart from other books and pamphlets, Wright translated John Napier's 1614 pioneer work on logarithms from Latin to English." Or you could substitute "revolutionary" for pioneer. I highly disliked the current wording. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 19:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 18:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Comment: I think that would work. I'd suggest "... Wright translated John Napier's pioneering 1614 work which introduced the idea of logarithms from Latin into English". "Revolutionary" sounds a bit hyperbolical. — Cheers, JackLee 14:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed: I've amended the sentence as I suggested. — Cheers, JackLee 19:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the images are beautifully sourced, licensed, and described - nice work! There is only one exception - Image:John Napier.JPG has no information on its source or authorship, with the exception of a statement that it came from the German Wikipedia. Kelly hi! 19:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. (Is there REALLY a book called Trigonometric Delights???? Gah... I hated hated hated trigonometry... delights is NOT the word i'd use to describe it!) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I was quite good at trigonometry when I did it at A-levels – but not having touched it for about 20 years I can't remember any of it! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think it's great,is well written and meets the FA criteria, but have a few comments/questions on (minor) things:

  • "..on 8 December 1576[2] as a sizar.[4]" - Shouldn't [2] be after punctuation?
  • "admitted as a sizar[4] at Caius on 7 July 1612.[10]" - again
    • Comment: The footnotes are placed after the facts they support. For instance, in the first example, footnote 2 supports the fact that Wright matriculated on 8 December 1576, while footnote 4 supports the fact that he was a sizar. — Cheers, JackLee 19:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Wikipedia:Footnotes#Ref tags and punctuation. I'm not to worried though and am happy for it to stay as is. - Shudde talk 23:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: OK. I should point out that "Wikipedia:Footnotes#Ref tags and punctuation" states: "Material may be referenced mid-sentence, but footnotes are usually placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph." [Emphasis added.] It's appropriate to use footnotes mid-sentence when a piece of information there appears in a source different to the one stated at the end of the sentence after the closing punctuation mark. — Cheers, JackLee 00:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wright was requested by Elizabeth I to carry out navigational studies with a raiding expedition" Should navigation be linked here for a second time when Elizabeth I isn't? You may want to check on your linking, some things are linked more then once and others are not. I'm not fussed if things are linked only once in the article, or only once in each section, as long as it's consistent.
    • Comment: My practice is to ignore links that appear only in the introductory paragraphs. Therefore, the link at "navigational" is the first time "navigation" has been linked in the main article. — Cheers, JackLee 19:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one writer has called him" - Any reason not to state the writer's name?
    • Fixed: No, I guess not! — Cheers, JackLee 19:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway those things above are minor, and I wouldn't oppose this FAC because of them. - Shudde talk 12:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - — Rlevse • Talk • 16:11, 15 June 2008 (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_candidates/Edward_Wright_(mathematician)&oldid=1138459241"