This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the article is very informative and well written. One of the things that I like to see when I read an article that I am unfamiliar with is if it was written in such a manner that someone who has no knowledge about the topic can understand what they are reading. I believe you accomplished just that. Like that previous reviewer said I also like the fact that you added information on the people you did. I think it helps paint the complete picture and allows the article be all encompassing in regards to what it is and its history.
The only things that I can suggest is that you might look at adding a little bit more information about John Dumblton. As the previous review stated I liked that you added in information about the different people involved but just a little bit more information on them would be great. The other thing that I can think of is that you might consider adding in a few different pictures. Perhaps a picture of some of the people that you have sections on in your article. Lizzygabbie (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was a good ideal to add the information about that last few people you added to the article. It allows for more information and history behind the oxford calculators. I also thought that the information you added to the science section was very good. You were also able to tie it into Aristotle well and what we talked about in class. I thought that was a really good idea.
Some things that may need some work is tying the people you added at the end into the rest of the information. I think the information you provided in those sections are good and vital, it seems a little choppy and just sort of there. A minor change that could be good is changing the section name science to something better. Lastly, I was left feeling a little confused on whether this is how the oxford calculators got their start. If they did come from these men, maybe give some explanation as to how it became a type of calculator over history into modern day. K.ebersole (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)