Wikipedia:Peer review/Andrew Wiles/archive2

Andrew Wiles

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review (17 years after the first) because though I am not an expert in mathematics, I feel Wiles’ article has become high-quality enough in the intervening years to receive an upgrade, or more importantly, an assessment of what needs to be fixed to make it featured status; I should note his influence on mathematics is powerful enough to perhaps warrant “today’s featured article” status for 19 September 2024, the 30th anniversary of his key insight that led to his correction of his greatest proof, so consider this the start of a yearlong campaign to improve the article to featured status.

Thanks, Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

@Jarrod Baniqued: If you are interested in making it a featured article, a good first step is to bring it to WP:GA. Here's some comments to address before you nominate it:

• I don't think the block quote of the Royal Society certificate is needed, as it raises copyright concerns.
• Consider using IA Bot to archive the sources.
• Ref 9: ensure that there is more citation information than the url.
• Expand the lede so that it is a summary of the article. Each section with a level 2 heading should have information included in the article.

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thank you very much for the insights. I will carry them out sometime in the next week. Please bring an editor with a second opinion, too, preferably with suggestions on how to get started. My initial idea is to, for lack of a better word, rephrase parts of the TV Tropes Useful Notes article on Fermat’s Last Theorem. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I have implemented this idea. I used IABot, but apparently due to some fudging with user permissions, it hasn’t directly edited the citations. Someone else will have to use IABot on the article.

I also have written a rudimentary lede, though I have yet to figure out how to implement the last recommendation for sections. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Sgubaldo

I'd love to see your campaign to make this a featured article come to fruition. Here's some comments:

• The first thing that jumps out to me is that this article does not cover much apart from Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem; it needs expansion on his career before and after this. This would also involve splitting the current section into multiple sections.
  • For example, there's no information on any of his doctoral students apart from Richard Taylor beyond the infobox.
• The "Awards and honours" section is currently just a couple of sentences and then a bulleted list; it needs to be written in proper prose.
• This is a matter of personal preference really, but I wouldn't use the current way Singh's book is cited. Instead, I'd use {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}} to cite pages from books and then have a single reference to the book below that. See the Oppenheimer article for a good example of this.
• Ensure the references are satisfactory, for example.
  • All authors with a Wikipedia article are wikilinked using |author-link
  • All publications with a Wikipedia article are wikilinked
  • All relevant sources have an access date
  • Reliable (famous-mathematicians.com and TV Tropes are not reliable sources)

Hope this helps! Sgubaldo (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sgubaldo I and some other editors have implemented some of the recommendations. Unfortunately I couldn’t make the September 19 deadline, though mid-2025 is as appealing. I would like your input on whether the article can be nominated for GA status now. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I will leave more comments on the open peer review. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)