This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article doesn't have a lead to speak of, should it really be A class?-- Cronholm144 04:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but to receive an A rating the article has to go through an in house evaluation before it should be ranked as such. I don't think that outsiders will get involved. However all articles that I have seen go through the GA and FA review process come out better articles. (Nevermind...)(5-26-07) Finally, the article, as per the FA criteria, is to have a lead which summarizes the topic at hand... or some such. Since an A class is considered an almost FA article I think it should have this as a prerequisite. I tend to obey the traditional rules when rating an article, there are many otherwise Bplus articles that I have given a start class rating because the lack a single reference. That is my two cents anyway.--
Cronholm144
06:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I just saw the history of the article... you might be a touch too close to this article to be objective, maybe we should get a third person evaluation? I.E. Oleg, Jitse, Lambiam, Salix, G-guy, etc...-- Cronholm144 06:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This might help, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/A-class_rating -- Cronholm144 09:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to add the link to the continuous Cayley transform. I have put an explanatory article here: http://arkadiusz-jadczyk.org/papers/cayley-2010-02-06.pdf where there is also a link to the animation: http://arkadiusz-jadczyk.org/images/Cayley_transform.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkadiusz jadczyk ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
An article doesn't have to be self contained. Doesn't Riemann sphere provide adequate context? It explains both stereographic projection and the relation to Mobius transformations. So why not add an additional nice tidbit here that helps to visualize this particular mapping? nadav ( talk) 09:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cayley transform/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Some suggestions: proceed from elementary to advanced, develop role in Lie theory, enhance lead. Is there more history that we can dig up? See also the discussion below. Geometry guy 20:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 20:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article doesn't have a lead to speak of, should it really be A class?-- Cronholm144 04:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but to receive an A rating the article has to go through an in house evaluation before it should be ranked as such. I don't think that outsiders will get involved. However all articles that I have seen go through the GA and FA review process come out better articles. (Nevermind...)(5-26-07) Finally, the article, as per the FA criteria, is to have a lead which summarizes the topic at hand... or some such. Since an A class is considered an almost FA article I think it should have this as a prerequisite. I tend to obey the traditional rules when rating an article, there are many otherwise Bplus articles that I have given a start class rating because the lack a single reference. That is my two cents anyway.--
Cronholm144
06:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I just saw the history of the article... you might be a touch too close to this article to be objective, maybe we should get a third person evaluation? I.E. Oleg, Jitse, Lambiam, Salix, G-guy, etc...-- Cronholm144 06:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This might help, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/A-class_rating -- Cronholm144 09:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to add the link to the continuous Cayley transform. I have put an explanatory article here: http://arkadiusz-jadczyk.org/papers/cayley-2010-02-06.pdf where there is also a link to the animation: http://arkadiusz-jadczyk.org/images/Cayley_transform.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkadiusz jadczyk ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
An article doesn't have to be self contained. Doesn't Riemann sphere provide adequate context? It explains both stereographic projection and the relation to Mobius transformations. So why not add an additional nice tidbit here that helps to visualize this particular mapping? nadav ( talk) 09:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cayley transform/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Some suggestions: proceed from elementary to advanced, develop role in Lie theory, enhance lead. Is there more history that we can dig up? See also the discussion below. Geometry guy 20:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 20:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)