Arnold Ross has been listed as one of the Mathematics good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 28, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Arnold Ross ran his
Ross Mathematics Program, a
number theory summer program for gifted high school students, for over forty years? |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article needs to be broken into sections before a "C" class, or higher, is given. Otherwise it needs to remain at "start". Maybe a section on "Early life", "Education", and "Career", etc. Pknkly ( talk) 14:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The sources conflict somewhat on the title of Ross's dissertation and the spelling of Bee's name. I went with what I thought was best verified, but if you find a better source, please do pass it along. czar ♔ 18:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Bruce1ee ( talk · contribs) 06:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this nomination – I'll follow up here with my findings in the next couple of days. — Bruce1ee talk 06:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I've done a little copyediting of the article, and a first pass through the text. These are my comments so far (more to come later). — Bruce1ee talk 09:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! czar ♔ 16:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | No Close paraphrasing/ copyright violations found. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | I've assumed good faith for two offline sources: Wissner-Gross and Pohst. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All images appear to be correctly tagged; no non-free content used. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Promoted to GA. |
Arnold Ross has been listed as one of the Mathematics good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 28, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Arnold Ross ran his
Ross Mathematics Program, a
number theory summer program for gifted high school students, for over forty years? |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article needs to be broken into sections before a "C" class, or higher, is given. Otherwise it needs to remain at "start". Maybe a section on "Early life", "Education", and "Career", etc. Pknkly ( talk) 14:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The sources conflict somewhat on the title of Ross's dissertation and the spelling of Bee's name. I went with what I thought was best verified, but if you find a better source, please do pass it along. czar ♔ 18:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Bruce1ee ( talk · contribs) 06:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this nomination – I'll follow up here with my findings in the next couple of days. — Bruce1ee talk 06:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I've done a little copyediting of the article, and a first pass through the text. These are my comments so far (more to come later). — Bruce1ee talk 09:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! czar ♔ 16:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | No Close paraphrasing/ copyright violations found. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | I've assumed good faith for two offline sources: Wissner-Gross and Pohst. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All images appear to be correctly tagged; no non-free content used. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Promoted to GA. |