Talk:François d'Aguilon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
 

Peer Review[edit]

You have a good start on this article, lots of good information. Your first paragraph under 6 Books of Optics gives me a solid idea of what you're talking about. From what you've written I begin to understand where d'Aguilon is coming from with his work and what he's trying to do with it.

The structure of your second paragraph is a bit jumbled, but subsections could help to straighten it out. I had a couple questions that might help you expand on what you already have. How does Kepler's publication affect the reception of the 6 Books of Optics? You say "D'Aguilon was given the task of organizing the teaching of geometry and science," but who gave him that task? Also, don't forget to check your grammar.

I hope this helps! Maagicalme (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Also please include reliable sources for all information. The web site you used as a source is of dubious reliability and the whole second paragraph of the new section is currently unsourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)