This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Dear colleagues
I've had a preliminary look through this page. May I make two comments?
First, I think the opening point is slightly overstated. I refer in particular to this:
"Articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means accessible to a general audience."
And this:
"Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely accessible manner possible."
I think we have to accept that—like it or not—the project is now host to some highly technical articles that are pretty tough going for the non-expert. Some of these are even Featured Articles. Yet the basic premise of this MoS, which is mandatory for FAs to follow, is strident and uncompromising: these articles should be rewritten. This message almost undermines the valuable point made at the end of the lead, that "Introduction to X" articles are often a good solution. I note also that many WPians may be confused by the instruction not to "dumb down" an article to make it more accessible.
My second impression is that the main section, "Ideas for enhanced accessibility", has the tone and content of an essay rather than a styleguide. Some of it is damn good advice, but is hard to frame in ways that involve personal style, or that closely depend on context. I'm referring to such points as "Add a picture", "Explain forumalae in English", and "Put the most accessible parts of the article up front". This is good general advice, but I'd like to suggest that it is inappropriate as part of the Manual of Style, in which more cut-and-dried guidance and rules are the norm.
The WP Styleguide Taskforce aims to rationalise the unwieldy mass of pages that have grown in the MoS over the years. I would like to suggest that this page be turned into an essay, and that its main messages be raised to greater prominence in just a few sentences in the main MoS page, with a link to the essay.
Please let us know what you think of this suggestion. We are also auditing Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions and Wikipedia:Explain jargon. Tony (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
PS, I'm very wobbly about these two points, even if this is retained as an essay:
This page was summarily removed without sufficient discussion. As this has been part of MOS for years, it should at least be discussed. -- Rs chen 7754 08:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure what "Use language similar to what you would use in a conversation" is supposed to mean, but it seems misworded to me. The language I would use in a conversation is going to be full of contractions and sentence fragments; it is not likely to be in the encyclopedic tone that we strive for here. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
But this is an encyclopaedia, and not all of the sources are. There's a widely used university textbook on quantum mechanics written by a physics professor and published by a major publisher, and used as a source on several WP articles, which includes the sentence:
I drew the figure so as to make you think of a car approaching a cliff, but obviously the probability of "bouncing back" from the edge of a cliff is far smaller than what you got in (a)—unless you're Bugs Bunny.
You wouldn't say anything like that in a WP article, would you? I think the converse issue – using legalese-sounding technical language when "plain English" would be no less precise, just because a source does the same for the sake of it – wouldn't be any less bad. See also WP:NOT PAPERS (part of a policy), especially points 4, 5 and 7. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 13:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Nothing has happened, despite the inclusion in the main MoS page of what to me looks like a useful, succinct encapsulation of what this page is conveying.
Unless someone can identify what is missing from that section that is worth retaining from this page, I intend to withdraw this page from the list of MoS pages and leave it as an essay prominently linked to from that main MoS section. Tony (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Opinion: I personally disagree with the whole notion of "introductory articles". I think the very idea runs contrary to the idea of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is specifically intended to be accessible by everyone. If one is contemplating creating a dumbed down version of an article on some topic, one should ask a simple question: "If it is possible to make this topic easier to understand, why am I not doing that to the original article instead of forking to a new article?" The technically minded author may argue that to fully discuss the topic, one must be too technical for the comprehension of the novice reader. This is a lazy excuse. Usually the real motivation is technical experts want to write articles that impress their peers rather than articles that are easy to understand. Wikipedia is not the place for such displays of vanity.
Proposal: Eliminate the suggestion for creating "introductory articles" in this essay. Instead include something like the following:
-- Mcorazao ( talk) 05:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic.
In many article on what would be interesting topics (particulary biology) there is a tendancy for people to use technical terms, OFTEN completely synonymous (or synonymous to the extent there is NO danger of confusion on the term) with a common English word. I have heard it said, the wikilink takes care of it. But we should consider the guidance that people will not follow the link. Also that "it might be nice for people to learn a new word" should be used in extreme moderation. If someone is learning new material, also learning new words is painful. And this is not a textbook. It's an encyclopedia. There should be a little bit of reading joy in the articles, rather than an attitude of teaching people Subject101 as it would in a textbook. And it's not an issue of a single new word (as perhaps you might have in an article on a historical subject) but of a bristling array of new terms and of them repeating down the page like an angry drumbeat. TCO ( talk) 15:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I've restored the guideline status. Recent discussions at WT:FAC found that while we disagreed over the degree of edtiorial restraint that editors felt should exercise wrt advanced technical material, there was support for the principle that we should be making every effort to reach the widest audience. Several editors felt the guideline was wrongly demoted to an essay. The nutshell was taken from that discussion. Colin° Talk 10:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
There is certainly agreement that every article should reach the widest possible audience for that article. In particular, the lede section of an article should go out of its way to establish the topic and its context in a way that is as accessible as possible. I have previously suggested elsewhere that the lede of a technical article should answer three questions:
I think that, as a minimum, the lede of a technical article should make the answers to these clear. For many readers, just knowing the answers to these questions may be enough to satisfy them.
However, this guideline accepts that articles on technical topics are not going to be accessible to a completely general audience. In particular, the article that was discussed at WT:FAC ( Rhodocene) is of the exceptional type that has some unavoidably technical content. However, I think that the lede does answer my three questions. Just having a few long words does not make an article "technical"; readers need to be willing to read, rather than skim, and to skip words they are unfamiliar with the get the general meaning. If you do that, the lede of that article does explain the topic, context, and interest just fine. The article is an FA, so that's not too surprising.
For the most part, this guideline reasonably allows for article like rhodocene to be more technical, and so the guideline fits in with current practice. For that reason, I don't oppose it being marked as a guideline.
My main criticism of this guildeine is that many of its suggestions are in (mild) conflict with other policies. For example, the idea that we should explain formulas can conflict with NOR and the "not a textbook" policy. The idea of adding examples is good, but many examples are original research, and having too many examples again violates NOT:TEXTBOOK.
These conflicts leave editors with a choice. We could write a perfectly nice set of lecture notes on a topic, with clear prose and examples. But it would be in complete violation of the NOR policy, and arguably would be too much like a textbook. Or we could write a well-sourced reference article that simply summarizes the content of reliable sources, but that will be more technical. Given the choice, I generally go with following the NOR policy at a cost of keeping the article more technical.
Finally, I want to point out that if there is concern about technical articles at FA, that's a matter for the FA people to decide for themselves. FA is an independent group, essentially just a differently named WikiProject, and editors can choose whether to participate in FA or not. The FA requirements should not be confused with Wikipedia-wide guidelines, any more than any other WikiProject's internal goals would be. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 12:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
(←) Some of the comments make me think some reviewers may be falling into the trap of "fighting the text". For example, when I read "Organometallic species such as these were of great interest because bonding models of the time were unable to explain their formation, let alone their stability." I think these things in this order:
So by reading that sentence, I learn various things (I'm not a chemist, I have no idea what a bonding model is, but now I know they exist).
The point is that you have to read the sentence on its own terms. If the authors want to explain who is interested, or what a bonding model is, they may do that in the body of the article. But in the lede, I have to take on faith that there is such a thing as a bonding model, and go from there. When I'm reading, I can't "fight" the text by constantly wishing that it answered different questions than I did, or went in a different order. I have to take the text and read it as it stands, in entirety, before trying to analyze it. When I do read this text on its own terms, I find that it conveys a significant amount of information.
Put another way: people like me who edit prose on a routine basis need to put that out of our heads when reading other people's prose. The question "what does this say" is different than the question "How would I have written this". For topics you aren't familiar with, you have to step out the "editor" role and into the "reader" role, where you accept that it is already written and your goal is to read it to see what it says. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I like Carl's three questions. However, I'm not sure that #2 ("Who studies it?") is quite the right way to put it for any article that isn't primarily or strictly academic in nature. What matters about, say, lasers or cancer, is not exactly "who studies it". (I unfortunately do not have a better suggestion for communicating the point behind this item, which is clear to me.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Rather than beating rhodocene more, let's look at a couple different examples: Diagonal lemma (a short article) and Aldol reaction (a featured article). What do you think about the ledes of those articles? Feel free to suggest your own examples for people to comment on. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 15:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Continuing my search for examples,
Poincaré conjecture seems to have a pretty acessible lede; it was in the news a while back, so people probably worked on accessibility at that time. I also looked at
Hydrochloric acid and
Acetic acid, both featured articles. Those are not particularly advanced topics, so they're not really examples, but the ledes seem to be somewhat accessible. Those ledes have very little content though, probably not meeting
WP:LEDE in terms of giving a stand-alone summary of the article. — Carl (
CBM ·
talk)
15:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I usually try to write one level down. So I think of articles on basic topics as written for 8th graders, articles on undergraduate topics written for high schoolers, and articles graduate topics written for undergrads. I have always though that was a reasonable way to do it, and it can be achieved without belittling the reader (which I think that parenthetical comments and simplified prose often do) or going into original research or textbook-like prose.
I think the lede of enzyme inhibitor is just fine, in terms of accessibility. If someone is seriously struggling to read that, they really need to look at some of the links before moving on to the rest of the article. There are articles that are seriously inaccessible, but that's not one of them. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 22:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I'll pick an example I'm familiar with: Angiomyolipoma. We start off badly with an article name that is too long for most people to pronounce easily. Let's look at the original lead sentence:
Angiomyolipoma is a benign renal neoplasm previously considered to be a hamartoma or choristoma, but now known to be benign.
The "renal" and "neoplasm" will trip up many but not all lay readers and "hamartoma", "choristoma" will befuddle most physicians. MedScape is a little better with:
Angiomyolipoma is a benign renal neoplasm composed of fat, vascular, and smooth muscle elements.
The "vascular" adjective might not be familiar to many. At least they've got rid of "hamartoma" and "choristoma". GPNotebook is awful:
Angiomyolipoma is an important hamartomatous, benign renal parenchymal tumour.
There. It is important. We told you so. My medical reference book has this impenetrable nonsense (as far as any lay reader is concerned)
Angiomyolipomata, once classified as hamartomata or choristoma, are now classified as PEComas (tumors showing perivascular epithelioid cell differentiation).
Here's the current text:
Angiomyolipoma (AML) are the most common benign tumour of the kidney and are composed of blood vessels, smooth muscle cells and fat cells.
The precise classification is really of interest only to specialists and contains some pretty difficult material so I've left that out the lead. I cover it as best I can in the Classification section (which possibly could go later). What the above shows is that it is perfectly possible for experts to write impenetrable nonsense on an obscure subject but it can be rescued by following the guidelines here. Colin° Talk 18:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see this whole kerfuffle, here, but r-cene is not a good example of a topic that can't be better explained in lead. Sure there might be topics in the loftiest echelons of math where that might be true (but even there, give it a fighting man's TRY first). I gave comments in the talk page for how to improve that lead. The rewritten (see talk) lede already progresses to comprehensibility.
I mean, when someone like Sasata, a practicing biologist Ph.D. with biochemistry understanding, and more tolerant of scienceyness than a lot of people, says the article gave him pause we should listen. There was a material scientist who had the same reaction. And I have a Ph.D. in inorganic chem. And I say it can be dialed down in the lead! I mean someone who is an engineer or a scientist should be able to get some feel for the thing, and a bit more pleasantly. But as of now, it's at least at Greenwood Chemistry of the Elements level of diffuculty (a general reference for inorganic chemists). I mean, it should be accessible by a chemical engineer at Dow or whatever. Not just grad students of Cotton. Some of the stuff is simple, like dialing down redundant use of chemical formulas (when names serve the need).
So please don't hold up rhodocene as the case where it's just too impossible to communicate. It's more the example where we didn't give it enough of a try! For one consideration, realize that the author has not shown other articles where he did do an FA (or even just an article) where he did the task of translation to civilians. Again, not to beat the fellow up, he is very reflective. The author was very willing to listen to my comments (and is probably a better chemist, writer, and nicer guy than I). But my point is, if I see someone who HAS translated a lot of technical stuff successfully, and then he says "this one is just impossible", then it's a point in favor of the assertion. OTOH, when he hasn't done that, it's more likely that he just needs to take a strain and learn to make articles accessible. TCO ( talk) 20:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I was unaware that the rhodocene atricle was being discussed here until earlier today, and have just read this discussion (including the above sections). As I have said elsewhere, I have no problem with working on improvements (preferably in response to constructive feedback) and don't WP:OWN the article. Perhaps this discussion might be directed at other examples, accepting that there is a talk page for the article and that these meta discussions (while necessary in their own right) are unhelpful to the specific case. Just so SandyGeorgia is aware, I have no intention of nominating the article for TFA anytime soon, possibly never at all. In part, it is because the article is never going to be a topic of wide interest and many other more general topics are more deserving of that kind of spotlight. As a personal observation (to all), I am upset that my "achievement" in getting the article to FA and the brief period of pride I felt has been so tainted and I urge that editors in the future consider that the pseudonym(s) who wrote the article (however much you dislike the writing and content) represent real people. There is no harm in treating others with compassion and acknowledging our common humanity. EdChem ( talk) 11:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
If this is to be elevated to style-guide status, there should be explicit consensus. I see issues all over the page. For example:
Just at a cursory glance. Tony (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I just did a Google search on (sentence length technical writing). The 12 word thing is extreme, although that's what advertising copy aims for. In general there is discussion of the "fog index" which has to do with adding long words to long sentences. Basically if you're already making it hard with long words, then compensated with shorter sentences. Shorter paragraphs are also advocated. Reference is made to D. H. Menzell's study of sentence length comprehension, but I have not been able to get the original source for the study. but supposedly over 34 words in technical writing is incomprehensible. There is discussion that some long sentences are allowed but the average should not be too long. US military advocates 17 words average.
Obviously more could be dug into, and I really respect those who know more about this than I. I just surfed Google and am a fan of Katzoff (he also advocates short sentences and paras in technical writing). Again, admitting we should look for more sources, would just say that the important thing is to realize that what's OK in an article in biography or history (with a narrative and easy words) is not the same as in an article where the material itself is more of a strain (more abstract). For instance in math or physics it is a bad idea to BOTH add new notation and new concepts. One at a time. But the combo is painful. Similarly, I think going with shorter sentences and shorter paras when the content is trickier, just makes sense. But Tony is right to ask for RSes! TCO ( talk) 07:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
P.s. My google surfing said you could treat the semicolon as making it a new sentence for fog index.
P.s.s. Obviously too long of a sentence can be an issue on its own, but to Tony's point, I think when the words are simple, from childhood, then it's easier than if they are trickier adult ones, or really sprecialized ones. TCO ( talk) 07:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Tony, I'm most surprised and annoyed by your revert over the guideline status of this page. The edit summary of "Rv unilateral granting of MoS status until consensus is gained" is not only hypocritical but wrong. There was clear consensus at WT:FAC for this to be restored and you were the person who unilaterally revoked its guideline status. When later an RfC was invoked to question the move, the result was no consensus for the change and some strong words criticising your actions.
Perhaps this should be restored to guideline status as a content guideline than a MoS guideline. It is far more important than where to put the semicolons and whether to use italics. It doesn't matter if every sentence in this page offers perfect advice today. We don't revert WP:V every time someone adds a sentence or SV rewrites it in order to get copy-edit approval from the MoS police before it can become policy again. If Tony has a problem with a few sentences, then remove those sentences and discuss them here. The main point of the guideline is vital. Colin° Talk 08:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I support the content guideline. TCO ( talk) 10:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Tony1 has, for the second time, unilaterally demoted this long-standing guideline to an essay with a curious edit summary referencing "unilateral granting of MoS status".
I'll requote Colin's summary of the history of this page from WT:FAC:
QUOTE
From April 2005 to April 2010, Wikipedia had a content guideline Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. This stated "Articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means accessible to a general audience." Throughout this time, you would hear people repeat "Wikipedia articles are written for the general reader" just as often as "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" or any other well-known widely accepted rule. This guideline has an equivalent in policy at WP:NOT which ( since July 2008) has said
A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.
Then, in April 2010, the guideline was demoted to an essay without prior discussion. The reason for that demotion given here was that because we had some "highly technical articles that are pretty tough going for the non-expert" (i.e., impenetrable to the general reader) and "some of these are even Featured Articles", and a Mos guideline is "mandatory for FAs to follow", this conflict should be resolved by eliminating the guideline. So now, Wikipedia has no official guideline as to its audience level. And all because we promoted some articles to FA that clearly broke the guideline.
UNQUOTE
This page was a guideline for five years and was summarily demoted to an essay by Tony1 with no discussion, and then again based on an RFC which showed no consensus for that demotion, and now again after extensive discussion here and at WT:FAC. If Tony1 wants to demote it, he needs to gain consensus. That the writing can be improved is not a reason to demote a long-standing guideline to an essay, based on Tony1's personal preferences and observations about some FACs which he says have passed without conforming (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, FAs which may have passed do not determine policy or guideline).
Also, will Tony1 please explain by what community process he believes he was appointed to "audit" and unilaterally remove long-standing guideline pages? And curiously, Tony1 indicates he wasn't even aware that there was an RFC (on this very page) that shows no consensus to demote the guideline, so what kind of "audit" did he perform before demoting the guideline? That the writing can be improved here is a distraction from the matter, and not a reason for demotion.
Finally, without highlighting previous cases, I'd like to remind Tony1 to avoid edit warring against consensus. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
One major issue with this essay is that it fails to take the target audience into account. There is no such thing as a "general audience", and this naturally leads to confusion over what is too technical for a "general audience": some would like to see every article reduced to an 8th grade reading (and knowledge?) level. Others have a more realistic viewpoint that the target audience of some articles ( Grothendieck universe) is likely to be very different from that of other articles ( addition). I think that a content guideline on making articles accessible is a good idea, but it needs to take a realistic viewpoint and offer advice that will be helpful to editors that are actually writing technical articles, since at the moment it seems largely to be used to bully those very editors instead.
As any good style manual on technical writing will tell you, the most important thing one needs to do is assess the target audience. This should be a realistic assessment. For example, if it's very unlikely that anyone without at least a solid background in a university-level science curriculum will be reading the article (e.g., exterior algebra), then it is reasonable to take this as the target audience, but completely unreasonable to think that the article should (or even can) be brought down to a high-school level.
Recently, the section on articles that are unavoidably technical was removed. While I agree with the removal in principle, I also believe that some assessment must be made of the correct level of technicality in an article that would be appropriate to its target audience (the article exterior algebra is an example—this cannot and should not be made accessible to an 8th grader). I propose that, if the essay is to be taken seriously by more science editors, then it should be written with an eye towards serious sources on technical writing. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I added a paragraph about "one level down" to the guideline. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the "write one level down" is a good start but it assumes the topic is an academic one. I don't see that working for "Angiomyolipoma" or some mushroom. What about a stubject like "Jesus", which people learn in Sunday school but I'm guessing (haven't looked) gets onto pretty heavyweight theological issues. Perhaps this advice could be worded to specifically address academic subjects. How do we classify the reader level for other topics? Colin° Talk 16:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I've revised the initial section to specifically cover the "Audience" aspect. This section is essentially setting out the facts that the rest of the guideline will offer advice on. So I've removed any specific advice from that section. If some of that advice is useful, we can incorporate it later on. Colin° Talk 22:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Rather than sniping and bickering at me, Sandy, could we take a more constructive attitude? My first observation is that "Ideas for enhanced understandability" is not supportable in a style guide. It should be binned. Tony (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking the only person who doesn't want this to be a MoS guideline as it stands, is Tony? Because if we just ignore that revert this morning then we are complicit in allowing consensus to be rejected and ignored. Twice. We need to work together to improve it on a consensual basis and that involves some respect for other opinions even if they disagree with you. If one person here has a golden vote over the wording or its status, then the Wiki model doesn't work. The purpose of these discussions is not to polish the page until Tony is happy or Colin is happy, or Carl or any one of us is happy. And it doesn't need to be perfect. Is someone brave enough to stand up for consensus? Colin° Talk 17:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with this being a guideline as it stands - but as editing goes forward, we need to keep the key aspects that:
I don't think the current text does either of those, so I can support it being a guideline. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
In support of restoring this page as a guideline, we have:
In opposition to restoring this page as a guideline (yet):
Colin° Talk 09:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
One suggestion as we clean up this page is to add before/after examples of leads or sections we feel meet the spirit of this guideline. For example, if the rhodocene article is being improved, that lead would be a prime example to include (linking back to the appropriate diffs) to help get the spirit of this across. -- MASEM ( t) 16:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
There has been a lot of work on the first paragraph of exterior algebra. The lede there is long because the article ought to be split into two parts; the first two paragraphs would be a reasonable lede for one half of the article. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 16:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The subject of the article (also known as something else, after some man who was probably a mathematician) is the algebraic system whose product (mathematics) is whatever the first paragraph was about. It provides an algebraic setting in which to answer geometric questions according to a set of unambiguous rules. It contains objects that are bigger or better than these blade things, which are simple. The rank of any element is defined to be something or another. The thing in the first paragraph extends to the full subject of the article, so that multiplying makes sense. Equipped with the thing in the first paragraph, the subject of the article is an associative algebra, which means something. The parts of the algebra that are sums of those blade things are called the degree k-elements (I can remember that name), and when bits of different degrees are multiplied, the degrees add (like multiplication of polynomials (which I actually know how to do)). This means that the exterior algebra is a graded algebra (I can remember that name, too).
In a precise sense (given by what is known as a universal construction (I can remember that name)), the subject of this article is the largest algebra that supports an alternating product on vectors, and can be easily defined in terms of other known objects. The definition makes sense for spaces not just of geometric vectors, but of other vector-like objects such as vector fields or functions. In full generality, it can be defined for modules over a commutative thing ("Right! Because addition is commutative!") and for other structures of interest in abstract algebra. It is one of these more general constructions where the exterior algebra finds one if its most important applications, where it appears as the algebra of something that is fundamental in areas that use some related kind of geometry. These related forms are mathematical objects that represent infinitesimal (Cool!) areas of infinitesimal parallelograms (and stuff like that), and so can be integrated over surfaces and stuff like that in a way that generalizes the lines* from calculus. The exterior algebra also has many algebraic properties that make it a convenient tool in algebra itself. The association of the exterior algebra to a vector space is a type of something on vector spaces, which means that it is compatible in a certain way with some of these things we've been talking about. The exterior algebra is one example of a bialgebra, meaning that has things and is compatible with things. This dual algebra is precisely the algebra of something, and the pairing between the exterior algebra and its dual is given by something else.
Exterior algebra answers geometric questions according to a set of unambiguous rules. It contains objects and is defined. Multiplying it makes sense. It's an algebra that you can multiply and add. In a precise sense, it's the largest algebra that supports things, and it can be easily defined in terms of other known objects. The definition makes sense for things of interest. It has important applications that are fundamental to geometry. It involves mathematical objects that represent infinite areas of infinite things and deals with surfaces and lines. The exterior algebra also has many properties that make it a convenient tool that is compatible. It's an example that is precisely compatible.
My advice for that lead:
1. Use an extra paragraph break. (You are allowed four paras.)
2. cut lenght by 30-50% (yes this will involve cutting content, but it will still be in the article...if you are losing the educated reader in the lead, and I have a Ph.D. in the hard sciences and that lead makes me want to move on), then the extra length is not helping you anyhow
3. Would have to look in article, but a common problem I see with leads is a tendancy to lift a bunch of topic sentences from the body and make a poor essay that is a wikiglom of sentences. NOT saying this happened, just would check it. See if organizing the content in a different order and with different organizing principles to make paras will help make a better lead. (We all already do this with the first sentence anyhow.) Yes, all else being equal follow the order of the body, but if not, take the time to write a fresh executive summary, not a wikiglom.
4. There may be some topics in extreme math where it's hard to convey much as one needs the background. But we should not let hard cases make bad law and then write articles in biology or chemistry which CAN be dialled down, but we just choose not to.
P.s. and I say all this knowing that you took a strain to get shwere you are. Still more can be done. Imagine you were in the corporate world and needed to summarize this stuff for a smart, but non-mathematician CEO. It's possible to do more. TCO ( talk) 05:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I use exterior algebra daily as a matter of routine, but have not contributed to the article (OK, I made one edit in 2008). I am impressed how much WhatamIdoing got out of the lead, despite problems with the article. As CBM notes, there are really two articles here, one on exterior product, and one on exterior algebra, and this issue can be seen in the lead. So, while the current lead may not be an exemplar, some of its practices may suggest useful advice. One thing that struck me was the use of memorable terminology and repetition, as this provides an anchor. However, as a word of caution, the term "blade" is only used in a niche of the mathematical community, which tends to use the adjectives "decomposable" and "simple" instead (also as nouns, especially in the plural). This is a nice illustration of the tension there is between accuracy and clarity: NOR and NPOV policies sometimes constrain the options editors have to make articles easier to read. Geometry guy 23:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
"The lead section" section is weak. The linked-to WP:MOSINTRO text is stronger, better written and has good advice not covered here. Arguably this is related to "Put the most understandable parts of the article up front". The hierarchy being the lead sentence < lead paragraph < lead section < body in terms of difficulty. And the body's sections ordered (to some degree) on difficulty, with the really hard stuff at the bottom. And within each section, if it contains difficult material, then it too may benefit from a section lead (sentence, paragraph) that gives an accessible overview. I suggest we replace this section with something like "Take it easy at the start" that contains paragraphs on the lead, on the body section ordering, and on giving overviews within difficult sections. One idea (used in print) is for footnotes to contain short "of interest to specialists only" facts -- you don't get nearer the bottom than the footnotes!
Thoughts? Colin° Talk 22:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Dear colleagues
I've had a preliminary look through this page. May I make two comments?
First, I think the opening point is slightly overstated. I refer in particular to this:
"Articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means accessible to a general audience."
And this:
"Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely accessible manner possible."
I think we have to accept that—like it or not—the project is now host to some highly technical articles that are pretty tough going for the non-expert. Some of these are even Featured Articles. Yet the basic premise of this MoS, which is mandatory for FAs to follow, is strident and uncompromising: these articles should be rewritten. This message almost undermines the valuable point made at the end of the lead, that "Introduction to X" articles are often a good solution. I note also that many WPians may be confused by the instruction not to "dumb down" an article to make it more accessible.
My second impression is that the main section, "Ideas for enhanced accessibility", has the tone and content of an essay rather than a styleguide. Some of it is damn good advice, but is hard to frame in ways that involve personal style, or that closely depend on context. I'm referring to such points as "Add a picture", "Explain forumalae in English", and "Put the most accessible parts of the article up front". This is good general advice, but I'd like to suggest that it is inappropriate as part of the Manual of Style, in which more cut-and-dried guidance and rules are the norm.
The WP Styleguide Taskforce aims to rationalise the unwieldy mass of pages that have grown in the MoS over the years. I would like to suggest that this page be turned into an essay, and that its main messages be raised to greater prominence in just a few sentences in the main MoS page, with a link to the essay.
Please let us know what you think of this suggestion. We are also auditing Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions and Wikipedia:Explain jargon. Tony (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
PS, I'm very wobbly about these two points, even if this is retained as an essay:
This page was summarily removed without sufficient discussion. As this has been part of MOS for years, it should at least be discussed. -- Rs chen 7754 08:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure what "Use language similar to what you would use in a conversation" is supposed to mean, but it seems misworded to me. The language I would use in a conversation is going to be full of contractions and sentence fragments; it is not likely to be in the encyclopedic tone that we strive for here. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
But this is an encyclopaedia, and not all of the sources are. There's a widely used university textbook on quantum mechanics written by a physics professor and published by a major publisher, and used as a source on several WP articles, which includes the sentence:
I drew the figure so as to make you think of a car approaching a cliff, but obviously the probability of "bouncing back" from the edge of a cliff is far smaller than what you got in (a)—unless you're Bugs Bunny.
You wouldn't say anything like that in a WP article, would you? I think the converse issue – using legalese-sounding technical language when "plain English" would be no less precise, just because a source does the same for the sake of it – wouldn't be any less bad. See also WP:NOT PAPERS (part of a policy), especially points 4, 5 and 7. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 13:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Nothing has happened, despite the inclusion in the main MoS page of what to me looks like a useful, succinct encapsulation of what this page is conveying.
Unless someone can identify what is missing from that section that is worth retaining from this page, I intend to withdraw this page from the list of MoS pages and leave it as an essay prominently linked to from that main MoS section. Tony (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Opinion: I personally disagree with the whole notion of "introductory articles". I think the very idea runs contrary to the idea of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is specifically intended to be accessible by everyone. If one is contemplating creating a dumbed down version of an article on some topic, one should ask a simple question: "If it is possible to make this topic easier to understand, why am I not doing that to the original article instead of forking to a new article?" The technically minded author may argue that to fully discuss the topic, one must be too technical for the comprehension of the novice reader. This is a lazy excuse. Usually the real motivation is technical experts want to write articles that impress their peers rather than articles that are easy to understand. Wikipedia is not the place for such displays of vanity.
Proposal: Eliminate the suggestion for creating "introductory articles" in this essay. Instead include something like the following:
-- Mcorazao ( talk) 05:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic.
In many article on what would be interesting topics (particulary biology) there is a tendancy for people to use technical terms, OFTEN completely synonymous (or synonymous to the extent there is NO danger of confusion on the term) with a common English word. I have heard it said, the wikilink takes care of it. But we should consider the guidance that people will not follow the link. Also that "it might be nice for people to learn a new word" should be used in extreme moderation. If someone is learning new material, also learning new words is painful. And this is not a textbook. It's an encyclopedia. There should be a little bit of reading joy in the articles, rather than an attitude of teaching people Subject101 as it would in a textbook. And it's not an issue of a single new word (as perhaps you might have in an article on a historical subject) but of a bristling array of new terms and of them repeating down the page like an angry drumbeat. TCO ( talk) 15:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I've restored the guideline status. Recent discussions at WT:FAC found that while we disagreed over the degree of edtiorial restraint that editors felt should exercise wrt advanced technical material, there was support for the principle that we should be making every effort to reach the widest audience. Several editors felt the guideline was wrongly demoted to an essay. The nutshell was taken from that discussion. Colin° Talk 10:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
There is certainly agreement that every article should reach the widest possible audience for that article. In particular, the lede section of an article should go out of its way to establish the topic and its context in a way that is as accessible as possible. I have previously suggested elsewhere that the lede of a technical article should answer three questions:
I think that, as a minimum, the lede of a technical article should make the answers to these clear. For many readers, just knowing the answers to these questions may be enough to satisfy them.
However, this guideline accepts that articles on technical topics are not going to be accessible to a completely general audience. In particular, the article that was discussed at WT:FAC ( Rhodocene) is of the exceptional type that has some unavoidably technical content. However, I think that the lede does answer my three questions. Just having a few long words does not make an article "technical"; readers need to be willing to read, rather than skim, and to skip words they are unfamiliar with the get the general meaning. If you do that, the lede of that article does explain the topic, context, and interest just fine. The article is an FA, so that's not too surprising.
For the most part, this guideline reasonably allows for article like rhodocene to be more technical, and so the guideline fits in with current practice. For that reason, I don't oppose it being marked as a guideline.
My main criticism of this guildeine is that many of its suggestions are in (mild) conflict with other policies. For example, the idea that we should explain formulas can conflict with NOR and the "not a textbook" policy. The idea of adding examples is good, but many examples are original research, and having too many examples again violates NOT:TEXTBOOK.
These conflicts leave editors with a choice. We could write a perfectly nice set of lecture notes on a topic, with clear prose and examples. But it would be in complete violation of the NOR policy, and arguably would be too much like a textbook. Or we could write a well-sourced reference article that simply summarizes the content of reliable sources, but that will be more technical. Given the choice, I generally go with following the NOR policy at a cost of keeping the article more technical.
Finally, I want to point out that if there is concern about technical articles at FA, that's a matter for the FA people to decide for themselves. FA is an independent group, essentially just a differently named WikiProject, and editors can choose whether to participate in FA or not. The FA requirements should not be confused with Wikipedia-wide guidelines, any more than any other WikiProject's internal goals would be. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 12:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
(←) Some of the comments make me think some reviewers may be falling into the trap of "fighting the text". For example, when I read "Organometallic species such as these were of great interest because bonding models of the time were unable to explain their formation, let alone their stability." I think these things in this order:
So by reading that sentence, I learn various things (I'm not a chemist, I have no idea what a bonding model is, but now I know they exist).
The point is that you have to read the sentence on its own terms. If the authors want to explain who is interested, or what a bonding model is, they may do that in the body of the article. But in the lede, I have to take on faith that there is such a thing as a bonding model, and go from there. When I'm reading, I can't "fight" the text by constantly wishing that it answered different questions than I did, or went in a different order. I have to take the text and read it as it stands, in entirety, before trying to analyze it. When I do read this text on its own terms, I find that it conveys a significant amount of information.
Put another way: people like me who edit prose on a routine basis need to put that out of our heads when reading other people's prose. The question "what does this say" is different than the question "How would I have written this". For topics you aren't familiar with, you have to step out the "editor" role and into the "reader" role, where you accept that it is already written and your goal is to read it to see what it says. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I like Carl's three questions. However, I'm not sure that #2 ("Who studies it?") is quite the right way to put it for any article that isn't primarily or strictly academic in nature. What matters about, say, lasers or cancer, is not exactly "who studies it". (I unfortunately do not have a better suggestion for communicating the point behind this item, which is clear to me.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Rather than beating rhodocene more, let's look at a couple different examples: Diagonal lemma (a short article) and Aldol reaction (a featured article). What do you think about the ledes of those articles? Feel free to suggest your own examples for people to comment on. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 15:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Continuing my search for examples,
Poincaré conjecture seems to have a pretty acessible lede; it was in the news a while back, so people probably worked on accessibility at that time. I also looked at
Hydrochloric acid and
Acetic acid, both featured articles. Those are not particularly advanced topics, so they're not really examples, but the ledes seem to be somewhat accessible. Those ledes have very little content though, probably not meeting
WP:LEDE in terms of giving a stand-alone summary of the article. — Carl (
CBM ·
talk)
15:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I usually try to write one level down. So I think of articles on basic topics as written for 8th graders, articles on undergraduate topics written for high schoolers, and articles graduate topics written for undergrads. I have always though that was a reasonable way to do it, and it can be achieved without belittling the reader (which I think that parenthetical comments and simplified prose often do) or going into original research or textbook-like prose.
I think the lede of enzyme inhibitor is just fine, in terms of accessibility. If someone is seriously struggling to read that, they really need to look at some of the links before moving on to the rest of the article. There are articles that are seriously inaccessible, but that's not one of them. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 22:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I'll pick an example I'm familiar with: Angiomyolipoma. We start off badly with an article name that is too long for most people to pronounce easily. Let's look at the original lead sentence:
Angiomyolipoma is a benign renal neoplasm previously considered to be a hamartoma or choristoma, but now known to be benign.
The "renal" and "neoplasm" will trip up many but not all lay readers and "hamartoma", "choristoma" will befuddle most physicians. MedScape is a little better with:
Angiomyolipoma is a benign renal neoplasm composed of fat, vascular, and smooth muscle elements.
The "vascular" adjective might not be familiar to many. At least they've got rid of "hamartoma" and "choristoma". GPNotebook is awful:
Angiomyolipoma is an important hamartomatous, benign renal parenchymal tumour.
There. It is important. We told you so. My medical reference book has this impenetrable nonsense (as far as any lay reader is concerned)
Angiomyolipomata, once classified as hamartomata or choristoma, are now classified as PEComas (tumors showing perivascular epithelioid cell differentiation).
Here's the current text:
Angiomyolipoma (AML) are the most common benign tumour of the kidney and are composed of blood vessels, smooth muscle cells and fat cells.
The precise classification is really of interest only to specialists and contains some pretty difficult material so I've left that out the lead. I cover it as best I can in the Classification section (which possibly could go later). What the above shows is that it is perfectly possible for experts to write impenetrable nonsense on an obscure subject but it can be rescued by following the guidelines here. Colin° Talk 18:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see this whole kerfuffle, here, but r-cene is not a good example of a topic that can't be better explained in lead. Sure there might be topics in the loftiest echelons of math where that might be true (but even there, give it a fighting man's TRY first). I gave comments in the talk page for how to improve that lead. The rewritten (see talk) lede already progresses to comprehensibility.
I mean, when someone like Sasata, a practicing biologist Ph.D. with biochemistry understanding, and more tolerant of scienceyness than a lot of people, says the article gave him pause we should listen. There was a material scientist who had the same reaction. And I have a Ph.D. in inorganic chem. And I say it can be dialed down in the lead! I mean someone who is an engineer or a scientist should be able to get some feel for the thing, and a bit more pleasantly. But as of now, it's at least at Greenwood Chemistry of the Elements level of diffuculty (a general reference for inorganic chemists). I mean, it should be accessible by a chemical engineer at Dow or whatever. Not just grad students of Cotton. Some of the stuff is simple, like dialing down redundant use of chemical formulas (when names serve the need).
So please don't hold up rhodocene as the case where it's just too impossible to communicate. It's more the example where we didn't give it enough of a try! For one consideration, realize that the author has not shown other articles where he did do an FA (or even just an article) where he did the task of translation to civilians. Again, not to beat the fellow up, he is very reflective. The author was very willing to listen to my comments (and is probably a better chemist, writer, and nicer guy than I). But my point is, if I see someone who HAS translated a lot of technical stuff successfully, and then he says "this one is just impossible", then it's a point in favor of the assertion. OTOH, when he hasn't done that, it's more likely that he just needs to take a strain and learn to make articles accessible. TCO ( talk) 20:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I was unaware that the rhodocene atricle was being discussed here until earlier today, and have just read this discussion (including the above sections). As I have said elsewhere, I have no problem with working on improvements (preferably in response to constructive feedback) and don't WP:OWN the article. Perhaps this discussion might be directed at other examples, accepting that there is a talk page for the article and that these meta discussions (while necessary in their own right) are unhelpful to the specific case. Just so SandyGeorgia is aware, I have no intention of nominating the article for TFA anytime soon, possibly never at all. In part, it is because the article is never going to be a topic of wide interest and many other more general topics are more deserving of that kind of spotlight. As a personal observation (to all), I am upset that my "achievement" in getting the article to FA and the brief period of pride I felt has been so tainted and I urge that editors in the future consider that the pseudonym(s) who wrote the article (however much you dislike the writing and content) represent real people. There is no harm in treating others with compassion and acknowledging our common humanity. EdChem ( talk) 11:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
If this is to be elevated to style-guide status, there should be explicit consensus. I see issues all over the page. For example:
Just at a cursory glance. Tony (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I just did a Google search on (sentence length technical writing). The 12 word thing is extreme, although that's what advertising copy aims for. In general there is discussion of the "fog index" which has to do with adding long words to long sentences. Basically if you're already making it hard with long words, then compensated with shorter sentences. Shorter paragraphs are also advocated. Reference is made to D. H. Menzell's study of sentence length comprehension, but I have not been able to get the original source for the study. but supposedly over 34 words in technical writing is incomprehensible. There is discussion that some long sentences are allowed but the average should not be too long. US military advocates 17 words average.
Obviously more could be dug into, and I really respect those who know more about this than I. I just surfed Google and am a fan of Katzoff (he also advocates short sentences and paras in technical writing). Again, admitting we should look for more sources, would just say that the important thing is to realize that what's OK in an article in biography or history (with a narrative and easy words) is not the same as in an article where the material itself is more of a strain (more abstract). For instance in math or physics it is a bad idea to BOTH add new notation and new concepts. One at a time. But the combo is painful. Similarly, I think going with shorter sentences and shorter paras when the content is trickier, just makes sense. But Tony is right to ask for RSes! TCO ( talk) 07:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
P.s. My google surfing said you could treat the semicolon as making it a new sentence for fog index.
P.s.s. Obviously too long of a sentence can be an issue on its own, but to Tony's point, I think when the words are simple, from childhood, then it's easier than if they are trickier adult ones, or really sprecialized ones. TCO ( talk) 07:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Tony, I'm most surprised and annoyed by your revert over the guideline status of this page. The edit summary of "Rv unilateral granting of MoS status until consensus is gained" is not only hypocritical but wrong. There was clear consensus at WT:FAC for this to be restored and you were the person who unilaterally revoked its guideline status. When later an RfC was invoked to question the move, the result was no consensus for the change and some strong words criticising your actions.
Perhaps this should be restored to guideline status as a content guideline than a MoS guideline. It is far more important than where to put the semicolons and whether to use italics. It doesn't matter if every sentence in this page offers perfect advice today. We don't revert WP:V every time someone adds a sentence or SV rewrites it in order to get copy-edit approval from the MoS police before it can become policy again. If Tony has a problem with a few sentences, then remove those sentences and discuss them here. The main point of the guideline is vital. Colin° Talk 08:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I support the content guideline. TCO ( talk) 10:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Tony1 has, for the second time, unilaterally demoted this long-standing guideline to an essay with a curious edit summary referencing "unilateral granting of MoS status".
I'll requote Colin's summary of the history of this page from WT:FAC:
QUOTE
From April 2005 to April 2010, Wikipedia had a content guideline Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. This stated "Articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means accessible to a general audience." Throughout this time, you would hear people repeat "Wikipedia articles are written for the general reader" just as often as "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" or any other well-known widely accepted rule. This guideline has an equivalent in policy at WP:NOT which ( since July 2008) has said
A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.
Then, in April 2010, the guideline was demoted to an essay without prior discussion. The reason for that demotion given here was that because we had some "highly technical articles that are pretty tough going for the non-expert" (i.e., impenetrable to the general reader) and "some of these are even Featured Articles", and a Mos guideline is "mandatory for FAs to follow", this conflict should be resolved by eliminating the guideline. So now, Wikipedia has no official guideline as to its audience level. And all because we promoted some articles to FA that clearly broke the guideline.
UNQUOTE
This page was a guideline for five years and was summarily demoted to an essay by Tony1 with no discussion, and then again based on an RFC which showed no consensus for that demotion, and now again after extensive discussion here and at WT:FAC. If Tony1 wants to demote it, he needs to gain consensus. That the writing can be improved is not a reason to demote a long-standing guideline to an essay, based on Tony1's personal preferences and observations about some FACs which he says have passed without conforming (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, FAs which may have passed do not determine policy or guideline).
Also, will Tony1 please explain by what community process he believes he was appointed to "audit" and unilaterally remove long-standing guideline pages? And curiously, Tony1 indicates he wasn't even aware that there was an RFC (on this very page) that shows no consensus to demote the guideline, so what kind of "audit" did he perform before demoting the guideline? That the writing can be improved here is a distraction from the matter, and not a reason for demotion.
Finally, without highlighting previous cases, I'd like to remind Tony1 to avoid edit warring against consensus. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
One major issue with this essay is that it fails to take the target audience into account. There is no such thing as a "general audience", and this naturally leads to confusion over what is too technical for a "general audience": some would like to see every article reduced to an 8th grade reading (and knowledge?) level. Others have a more realistic viewpoint that the target audience of some articles ( Grothendieck universe) is likely to be very different from that of other articles ( addition). I think that a content guideline on making articles accessible is a good idea, but it needs to take a realistic viewpoint and offer advice that will be helpful to editors that are actually writing technical articles, since at the moment it seems largely to be used to bully those very editors instead.
As any good style manual on technical writing will tell you, the most important thing one needs to do is assess the target audience. This should be a realistic assessment. For example, if it's very unlikely that anyone without at least a solid background in a university-level science curriculum will be reading the article (e.g., exterior algebra), then it is reasonable to take this as the target audience, but completely unreasonable to think that the article should (or even can) be brought down to a high-school level.
Recently, the section on articles that are unavoidably technical was removed. While I agree with the removal in principle, I also believe that some assessment must be made of the correct level of technicality in an article that would be appropriate to its target audience (the article exterior algebra is an example—this cannot and should not be made accessible to an 8th grader). I propose that, if the essay is to be taken seriously by more science editors, then it should be written with an eye towards serious sources on technical writing. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I added a paragraph about "one level down" to the guideline. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the "write one level down" is a good start but it assumes the topic is an academic one. I don't see that working for "Angiomyolipoma" or some mushroom. What about a stubject like "Jesus", which people learn in Sunday school but I'm guessing (haven't looked) gets onto pretty heavyweight theological issues. Perhaps this advice could be worded to specifically address academic subjects. How do we classify the reader level for other topics? Colin° Talk 16:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I've revised the initial section to specifically cover the "Audience" aspect. This section is essentially setting out the facts that the rest of the guideline will offer advice on. So I've removed any specific advice from that section. If some of that advice is useful, we can incorporate it later on. Colin° Talk 22:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Rather than sniping and bickering at me, Sandy, could we take a more constructive attitude? My first observation is that "Ideas for enhanced understandability" is not supportable in a style guide. It should be binned. Tony (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking the only person who doesn't want this to be a MoS guideline as it stands, is Tony? Because if we just ignore that revert this morning then we are complicit in allowing consensus to be rejected and ignored. Twice. We need to work together to improve it on a consensual basis and that involves some respect for other opinions even if they disagree with you. If one person here has a golden vote over the wording or its status, then the Wiki model doesn't work. The purpose of these discussions is not to polish the page until Tony is happy or Colin is happy, or Carl or any one of us is happy. And it doesn't need to be perfect. Is someone brave enough to stand up for consensus? Colin° Talk 17:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with this being a guideline as it stands - but as editing goes forward, we need to keep the key aspects that:
I don't think the current text does either of those, so I can support it being a guideline. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
In support of restoring this page as a guideline, we have:
In opposition to restoring this page as a guideline (yet):
Colin° Talk 09:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
One suggestion as we clean up this page is to add before/after examples of leads or sections we feel meet the spirit of this guideline. For example, if the rhodocene article is being improved, that lead would be a prime example to include (linking back to the appropriate diffs) to help get the spirit of this across. -- MASEM ( t) 16:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
There has been a lot of work on the first paragraph of exterior algebra. The lede there is long because the article ought to be split into two parts; the first two paragraphs would be a reasonable lede for one half of the article. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 16:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The subject of the article (also known as something else, after some man who was probably a mathematician) is the algebraic system whose product (mathematics) is whatever the first paragraph was about. It provides an algebraic setting in which to answer geometric questions according to a set of unambiguous rules. It contains objects that are bigger or better than these blade things, which are simple. The rank of any element is defined to be something or another. The thing in the first paragraph extends to the full subject of the article, so that multiplying makes sense. Equipped with the thing in the first paragraph, the subject of the article is an associative algebra, which means something. The parts of the algebra that are sums of those blade things are called the degree k-elements (I can remember that name), and when bits of different degrees are multiplied, the degrees add (like multiplication of polynomials (which I actually know how to do)). This means that the exterior algebra is a graded algebra (I can remember that name, too).
In a precise sense (given by what is known as a universal construction (I can remember that name)), the subject of this article is the largest algebra that supports an alternating product on vectors, and can be easily defined in terms of other known objects. The definition makes sense for spaces not just of geometric vectors, but of other vector-like objects such as vector fields or functions. In full generality, it can be defined for modules over a commutative thing ("Right! Because addition is commutative!") and for other structures of interest in abstract algebra. It is one of these more general constructions where the exterior algebra finds one if its most important applications, where it appears as the algebra of something that is fundamental in areas that use some related kind of geometry. These related forms are mathematical objects that represent infinitesimal (Cool!) areas of infinitesimal parallelograms (and stuff like that), and so can be integrated over surfaces and stuff like that in a way that generalizes the lines* from calculus. The exterior algebra also has many algebraic properties that make it a convenient tool in algebra itself. The association of the exterior algebra to a vector space is a type of something on vector spaces, which means that it is compatible in a certain way with some of these things we've been talking about. The exterior algebra is one example of a bialgebra, meaning that has things and is compatible with things. This dual algebra is precisely the algebra of something, and the pairing between the exterior algebra and its dual is given by something else.
Exterior algebra answers geometric questions according to a set of unambiguous rules. It contains objects and is defined. Multiplying it makes sense. It's an algebra that you can multiply and add. In a precise sense, it's the largest algebra that supports things, and it can be easily defined in terms of other known objects. The definition makes sense for things of interest. It has important applications that are fundamental to geometry. It involves mathematical objects that represent infinite areas of infinite things and deals with surfaces and lines. The exterior algebra also has many properties that make it a convenient tool that is compatible. It's an example that is precisely compatible.
My advice for that lead:
1. Use an extra paragraph break. (You are allowed four paras.)
2. cut lenght by 30-50% (yes this will involve cutting content, but it will still be in the article...if you are losing the educated reader in the lead, and I have a Ph.D. in the hard sciences and that lead makes me want to move on), then the extra length is not helping you anyhow
3. Would have to look in article, but a common problem I see with leads is a tendancy to lift a bunch of topic sentences from the body and make a poor essay that is a wikiglom of sentences. NOT saying this happened, just would check it. See if organizing the content in a different order and with different organizing principles to make paras will help make a better lead. (We all already do this with the first sentence anyhow.) Yes, all else being equal follow the order of the body, but if not, take the time to write a fresh executive summary, not a wikiglom.
4. There may be some topics in extreme math where it's hard to convey much as one needs the background. But we should not let hard cases make bad law and then write articles in biology or chemistry which CAN be dialled down, but we just choose not to.
P.s. and I say all this knowing that you took a strain to get shwere you are. Still more can be done. Imagine you were in the corporate world and needed to summarize this stuff for a smart, but non-mathematician CEO. It's possible to do more. TCO ( talk) 05:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I use exterior algebra daily as a matter of routine, but have not contributed to the article (OK, I made one edit in 2008). I am impressed how much WhatamIdoing got out of the lead, despite problems with the article. As CBM notes, there are really two articles here, one on exterior product, and one on exterior algebra, and this issue can be seen in the lead. So, while the current lead may not be an exemplar, some of its practices may suggest useful advice. One thing that struck me was the use of memorable terminology and repetition, as this provides an anchor. However, as a word of caution, the term "blade" is only used in a niche of the mathematical community, which tends to use the adjectives "decomposable" and "simple" instead (also as nouns, especially in the plural). This is a nice illustration of the tension there is between accuracy and clarity: NOR and NPOV policies sometimes constrain the options editors have to make articles easier to read. Geometry guy 23:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
"The lead section" section is weak. The linked-to WP:MOSINTRO text is stronger, better written and has good advice not covered here. Arguably this is related to "Put the most understandable parts of the article up front". The hierarchy being the lead sentence < lead paragraph < lead section < body in terms of difficulty. And the body's sections ordered (to some degree) on difficulty, with the really hard stuff at the bottom. And within each section, if it contains difficult material, then it too may benefit from a section lead (sentence, paragraph) that gives an accessible overview. I suggest we replace this section with something like "Take it easy at the start" that contains paragraphs on the lead, on the body section ordering, and on giving overviews within difficult sections. One idea (used in print) is for footnotes to contain short "of interest to specialists only" facts -- you don't get nearer the bottom than the footnotes!
Thoughts? Colin° Talk 22:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)