Its already a GA (good article status) and rated A class from the Mathematics Wikiproject. Why is this still not a Featured Article? --Khunter 23:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment, why is it not an FA? Lack of inline citations, I'd assume. PhoenixTwo 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a couple of inline citations recently, bringing the total up to 20. Does it need still more, do you think? Rick Norwood 00:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
JHMM13 nicely pointed out what I was hinting at below. PhoenixTwo 22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Object. It's not about how many inline citations you have, it's about the proper amount of inline citations in a specific article. Right now, I see no evidence to verify many of the claims made in most of the history section, all of the inspiration... section, much of the mathematics as science section, etc. etc. Here's an example of text that sorely needs a citation and probably needs rewriting: "The case of Kurt Heegner's work shows that the mathematical establishment is neither infallible, nor unwilling to admit error in assessing 'amateur' work. And like astronomy, mathematics owes much to amateur contributors such as Fermat and Mersenne." You should refer this to peer review first. JHMM13 01:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The "Common misconceptions" section is probably too weak: little coherence and too much attention is given to pseudomathematics. The subsection on the connection with physical reality touches an interesting point (philosophy of mathematics) but its topic is similar with "mathematics as science", so they should probably be merged. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. Rick Norwood 21:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'm puzzled by the use of the Rubik's cube image for abstract algebra. If anything, this should be used to illustrate group theory. Also, there seems to be a missing image for Geometry and for the subsection on applied mathematics. That one, by the way, should probably be split: there should be a subsection for probability theory and statistics with appropriate images. But overall the article is quite nice and I can see it becoming FA in the near future. Pascal.Tesson 15:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
And two other minor issues: the thumbnails of the images for trigonometry and differential geometry are very very pale (the curves are not thick enough and they are pale in colour). Also Philosophy of mathematics should be referenced as a main subarticle. Pascal.Tesson 15:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yet another comment: the "see also" list is a sign of the article's lack of comprehensiveness. There should be something in the article (at least a short paragraph) on the central role of mathematics in education (and competitions could be thrown in there). Moreover recreational mathematics and mathematical games should also appear in the body of the article. (for instance in the section on philosophy and aesthetics of mathematics). Pascal.Tesson 18:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Object — Sorry to say this (because I enjoy mathematics as a field) but I find the writing on this page to be insufficiently compelling. As I read through the first few sections I keep tripping up in sections with awkward writing, which completely distracts me from enjoying the text. It needs a good editor to go through and polish up the sentences and paragraphs.
What does this mean? "Further steps need writing or some other system for recording numbers such as tallies or the knotted strings called quipu used by the Inca empire to store numerical data."
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.