Talk:Ronald Graham/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ovinus (talk · contribs) 09:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images are relevant and well-selected.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I'll take this one up. I had no clue Ronald Graham had passed away... that's really sad to hear. Thanks for working on his article. A cursory look through of the article found nothing wanting, so I'll move on to the full review. Ovinus (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig copyvio detector found nothing. The only overarching issue I can see is a bit of overlinking and referencing people multiple times with their full name, which should be pretty easy to fix. It's well-written and seems mostly comprehensive. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

How about start off with American Mathematical Society (AMS) and then just AMS the second time?
- I prefer to avoid making readers of long articles memorize all sorts of acronyms in order to understand the articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's fair. What about contracting University of California, x to UC x? That contraction is pretty unambiguous. To be sure, I'm also a Californian, so maybe that term isn't recognizable to someone out-of-state/country. Ovinus (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - On second thought, it isn't a big deal. It's used a handful of times in total.
I've made some small changes, so let me know if those are alright.
- Copyedits mostly look innocuous enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool.

Biography

the son of an oil field worker and later merchant marine Is this the father? Do we know anything about Graham's mother?
- Yes and no. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's pretty safe to assume that an oil field worker is male, but I'd prefer something like "His father was an oil field worker and later, a merchant marine."
    - That forced changing the pronoun in the next sentence into a repetition of Graham's name, but ok, whatever, if you think the gender of Graham's oil-worker parent is important to mention, we can do it that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmmm, that's a good point. His parent isn't the focus here; feel free to revert.
        I think I'll leave the "father" in, to make more clear that his move to Florida was with the other parent. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
where he learned gymnastics but no mathematics. He didn't take math classes while he was there? I think "but no mathematics" can be removed here.
- Yes, the source explicitly states that he didn't take math classes while he was there. I think that, given that he became famous as a mathematician, it is both interesting that he started his university-level education not studying mathematics, and important to mention because without it readers are likely to assume that the University of Chicago was the first place he started studying mathematics seriously (as, for most people, their first university would be). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree now it should be included. The issue with "learned... no mathematics" is that it sounds like he learned nothing math-related at all. I'm guessing the source means he didn't study math academically. Could this be clarified?
    - Changed to "took no mathematics courses". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could his former spouse Nancy Young be added to the infobox, along with dates of his marriages?
- I would prefer not. See WP:DISINFOBOX. Infoboxes make the information within the infobox more prominent, and make information elsewhere in the article look secondary. Therefore, information should only go in the infobox if it is significant, central to the article, something worth mentioning in the lead of the article. His first marriage and children do not rise to that level. Just because an infobox allows some information to be mentioned is a bad reason for mentioning it there. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm going to link to WP:DISINFOBOX more! I would recommend the dates of his marriage be included though, as I think it's important that his collaborator was married to him for more than thirty years.
    - I added the date of the marriage with Fan to the infobox. They were collaborators for longer than that, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of his marriages, do you have any information on his three marriages before marrying Chung?
- No. If I did, it would have been in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright, and I don't think it's that pertinent either.
University Professor of Mathematical Sciences Is the "University" necessary here? (Is that the full title?)
- Yes, "University" is part of the title. It's a special status, comparable to "Distinguished Professor". The article Academic ranks in the United States is undersourced but seems generally accurate on the topic. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This varies somewhat by university, but in the University of California system "University Professor" is an even higher level than "Distinguished Professor". See for instance [1] which gives criteria for this position. Among the criteria are holding the rank of Professor Above Scale; at UCSD (and most UC campuses including mine) that rank automatically gives its holder at least Distinguished Professor status. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Got it.

Contributions

with Fan Chung can just say "Chung" and not wikilink it for the rest of the article
- Ok, except that I left her name full and wikilinked (like the others) in the section giving full bibliographic details for the selected publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As well as publishing under his own name, Graham has participated in the publications I think the first phrase here can be removed; it's pretty clear that Graham has published without a pseudonym
- That was intended more as linking text than as a reminder that he'd unexpectedly used his own name in his own publications, but ok, it's gone. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and the Erdős–Graham problem is closely related I'd make clear it's related to Egyptian fractions, so "which are closely related to the Erdos–Graham problem"
- But that's backwards. It would be like saying that mathematics is closely related to combinatorics: sort of true, but a really weird way of stating it. Egyptian fractions are the general area within which both the dissertation and the Erdős–Graham problem are separate subtopics. The intent of that sentence was to say that the dissertation and the Erdős–Graham problem are related to each other, because they're both about Egyptian fractions. Copyedited to (I hope) make that clearer. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's actually more confusing now. Maybe instead of "which are closely related to", how about "which are the subject of". Also it should be "partition of the integers"
    - That doesn't convey the intended meaning, that both the dissertation and the Erdos-Graham problem are on different and unrelated subtopics of Egyptian fractions. "Which are the subject of" makes it sound like you are trying to say they are on the same topic. Typo in "integers" fixed. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Erdős Can just be Erdos and non-linked for the rest of the article
- Again, ok, except not in the selected publications section. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, the publications section should def include their full name, thanks.
Graham offered a monetary prize To be clear, the prize was totally out of his own pocket?
- That is the usual situation with these sorts of personal prizes, yes. We have no information to the contrary. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool
As well, The previous sentence describes Graham's work with Mills in juggling, right? So why is this "as well" if we have already considered one of his contributions to the field of juggling? Maybe "Graham himself made significant" ?
- The previous sentence describes Graham as having made practical, not theoretical contributions to juggling: teaching someone to juggle, and inspiring a particular juggling pattern. The "as well" is intended to mean that he also contributed in a different way, to the theory as well as to the practice of juggling. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, the "theoretical" makes that clear.
I made a couple small changes, so do check
- I think this was covered by my previous note, where I looked at the diffs of your changes and didn't see anything especially problematic. The diffs were not broken down separately by section. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

All together, a great article on a great man. Thank you for working on this; I found the article very interesting. I'll promote once you've responded to my remaining comments. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments have been addressed. Promoting. Ovinus (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]