User talk:Mathwriter2718

Articles on integers

Hello! I am somewhat baffled that it looks as though I am the first real person to write to your talk page, but...

You have been assigning "importance" levels to articles, and I spot that, for example, 20 is rated "High", 21-23 are rated "Medium" and 24 is rated "Low". I just wonder what on earth this means, that 20 is two grades above 24? Have you looked closely at these articles? Over recent months User:Radlrb has been adding huge amounts of material, possibly doubling the total volume. Most of if seems to be statements of mathematical truth rather than falsehoods or nonsense, but much of it an incoherent wall of text with no obvious direct relation to the topic in hand. I really do not think the articles are very good at all; you have been working on the Arnold conjecture - an article way beyond me, as I think it would take at least a week for me to work out what a symplectic manifold is. That is fine, because the readership of such an article is going to be high level. But the number articles surely should be aimed at the general readership; they should be largely understandable without any high (medium? low?) mathematical knowledge, although the could and I think should lead to selected high-level results by making some simplified explanation with a link to the article. I'm thinking of examples like 5: quintics are not soluble by radicals. I suppose my concern is that attaching "importance" levels is out of step with articles which I think are utterly inappropriate in conception. Interested in your thoughts... Imaginatorium (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Yes, you are the first human on my talk page. Welcome! Let me explain what these ratings mean.

These ratings are not ratings of the level of mathematical knowledge needed to understand the articles. They are also not ratings of whether the articles are amazing or whether they suck. They are not even ratings of about how important to society the subject is!!

These ratings are about how important the article is to WikiProject Mathematics, a project that aims to improve mathematics pages on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics). They reflect how important the subject of the article is to the field of mathematics, regardless of the level of mathematical knowledge the article is written at or how well or badly the article is written.

I'll also note that the ratings are extremely disputable and open to being changed. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Number_pages. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See [[1]] for more info about these ratings. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Imaginatorium indeed, User:Radlrb has recently gotten into a big spat with WP:WikiProject Mathematics editors over the page 1234 (number). Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Bing double

Hello, Mathwriter2718,

Thank you for creating Bing double.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

With only one source other than the original primary description there isn't enough evidence to demonstrate that this topic is notable.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Klbrain (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain thanks for your message. I have added 3 new sources to Bing double. Please let me know if you think this article has further immediate issues. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reasponse; they're helpful for establishing notability. I've moved two of them to 'further reading' as they're not cited. No further requests/suggestions from me. Klbrain (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on FA nomination of Algebra

Hello Mathwriter2718, I was wondering whether you might be interested in commenting on the FA nomination of Algebra. The nomination has already attracted several reviews but the reviewers so far are not math experts so it would be good to have the perspective of someone with a better background in maths. Given that you are already familiar with the article from your earlier peer review, if you have the time, I would appreciate your comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your request. I can comment on the nomination in my capacity as a mathematical expert. My comment will focus on math and I will look less at things like clarity of writing, etc that others have already extensively critiqued. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, thanks for taking the time! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mathwriter2718, are you still working on the FA review of Algebra? I don't want to be pushy, but I expect that the coordinators intend to close the nomination soon. If there is a specific issue you are struggling with, we could try to solve it here. If it is not possible for you to finish the last part of the review, please let me know. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7 I appreciate you reaching out and I have responded on the FA review page. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]