Talk:Émile Lemoine

On hold pre review
First read through

not a great deal amiss, but the following points were noted Jimfbleak (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) needs checking for style and MOS, eg American Mathematical Monthly should be italicised, "most well-known" = "best-known", sentence ending in "for" is not good style "and it was a meeting of this group in Lyons, that he presented his paper in 1873." isn't grammatical. "Later, Lemoine wrote another work this one a treatise" etc
 * ✅ Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 23:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) There's a bit of overlinking, eg civil engineer twice in the intro alone.
 * ✅ Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 23:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) can you reference Sur quelques propriétés d'un point remarquable du triangle? see here
 * ✅ - thanks for finding the ref for me. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 23:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "See also" should go - Brocard and the circle are already linked, and the others are connected primarily to Brocard, not Lemoine
 * Well, Brocard's work is strongly connected to Lemoine's. In fact, I would link to all the "modern geometry"-movement mathematicans of the twentieth century, but none but Brocard and now Lemoine have article! I removed the redundant links and added a few others, though. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 23:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "(Coolidge 1980)" etc looks odd - why the parentheses?
 * It's the Harvard referencing style. Looks odd, I agree, but that's the way it's done. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 23:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) accent on "Émile" not always present, esp in notes
 * ✅ Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 23:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't like the second para of the intro much, and would rather see the quotation in the main text
 * The quotation is based off guide WP:MOSQUOTE, and is the standard way to quote a passage. What else do you specifically dislike about the second paragraph?
 * 1) source 7 talks about "simplicity", you say "complexity"
 * ✅ Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 23:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't querying the formatting of the quote, just felt it would be better in the main text than the intro. I've copyedited, putting refs alphabetically and generally tightening the prose. For future reference, note that this article had some unnecessary verbiage in places, and there were far too many occurences of "post". Anyway, onwards and upwards: Jimfbleak (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * What's wrong with some posts? ;) Anyways, thanks for your time and effort. Sorry, I misunderstood you with the quote. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

FA
Congratulations on the FA. I have to say, however, that I'm a little surprised. I was about to post a somewhat critical review when the article got promoted. I will leave a few comments here in the hope that editors will have time and energy to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia's featured articles.

Two examples from the lead "He is widely regarded as a co-founder of modern triangle geometry"; "Additionally, he founded a mathematical journal".

First example: is he so widely regarded? And if so, who is the co-founder? The body of the article mentions this twice, and on the first occasion reveals that there are two co-founders. The source is the personal webpage of mathematician Clark Kimberling, who says that Nathan Altshiller Court's book on Modern Geometry refers to Lemoine, Brocard, and Neuberg as the three co-founders of modern triangle geometry. The article doesn't cite the book. Instead, on the second occasion it states (redundantly) that "Lemoine has been described as a co-founder of modern triangle geometry, a term used by several mathematical associations such as the Mathematical Association of America and the American Mathematical Society." The article needs to make the source explicit: it does not seem to support the "widely regarded" in the lead.

Second example: what journal? I hoped the footnote would tell me, but it didn't. In fact most of the footnotes in the lead could be dropped because they are supporting more precise information in the rest of the article. In the article I find "He also participated and founded several scientific societies and journals" and more than one journal is mentioned (Journal de Physique and L'intermédiaire des mathématiciens)

These examples illustrate a failure of the article to be comprehensive, to be compelling, to be well structured and to be well sourced. I fail to get either a clear sense of Lemoine's life story or a clear sense of his contribution to mathematics from the article. The lead is opaque, and the biography section mixes details of his contributions with his life story. Concerning his life story, I'm completely unclear how long he spent in academia before he became a civil engineer. One of the sources suggests he taught until 1866, and then became a civil engineer. Concerning his contributions, the biography has vague statements such as "During this time, he published additional notable papers, including a series on what he called transformation continue, which related mathematical equations to geometrical objects such as the triangle and tetrahedron." Now "transformation continue" would normally refer to the theory of Lie groups developed, among others, but Lie and Cartan; if it doesn't, then the reader needs to know what it refers to. By putting this in the biography section, rather than the contributions section, the reader never gets to know. Geometry guy 23:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the congratulations. I'll attempt to clarify the things that you mentioned address any other concerns you may have. I'm quite busy in real life right now, however, so I may not finish this for a while. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 00:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked through the article and saw a few more opportunities for citation.

References to the original publication of new results is requested by the scientific citation guidelines: "Where possible, Wikipedia should strive to provide the original reference for any discovery, breakthrough, or novel theoretical development, both for attribution and historical completeness". Thus the sentence "Lemoine also proved that if lines are drawn through the Lemoine point parallel to the sides of the triangle, then the six points of intersection of the lines and the sides of the triangle are concyclic, or that they lie on a circle" ought to include references to the papers where Lemoine published these results, if he did publish them. Similarly, Lemoine's 1873 paper should be cited, and publication details should be provided for the "list of selected works" (that section title is also confusing: why not provide a list of all publications?)

Incidentally, I noticed the footnote to Bell (2005) doesn't have the title of the paper, only the title of the journal.

In the sentence "Lemoine has been described as a co-founder of modern triangle geometry, a term used by several mathematical associations such as the Mathematical Association of America and the American Mathematical Society.[1]", it would be better to say exactly what authors made the description; papers are not ordinarily written under the names of those mathematical societies. The footnote to that sentence is to a self-published website; it would be better to directly cite the papers where the description was made. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In case anyone wonders, a thousand apologies, but I'm extraordinarily busy right now in real life, and will probably not be able to address the issues until June, when school lets out. If you wish to demote this from FA so that I can take it through FAC again afterwards, I'd understand. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 00:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe I've done my best to clean up the article in the ways you suggested. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 22:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is good enough for the time being. I think the article might benefit from a revisit, perhaps even an FAR, when interested editors have more time and energy. Cheers, Geometry guy 19:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

géométrographie
I disagree will the following paragraph:

Lemoine's system of constructions, the géométrographie, counted five basic geometric operations: placing a compass's end on a given point, placing it on a given line, drawing a circle with the compass, placing a straightedge on a given line, and extending a line with the straightedge. Note that drawing a line in an empty plane is possible using this system, as it is simply extending a line of length zero. Drawing a point is not necessary, as a point is merely a location in the plane.[14][12]

The way it is exposed in the original paper is different. The order is different and the details are different. For example "drawing a circle with the compass" isn't just one operation. First one needs to place the compass on a point, then chose a length and then draw the circle (that's three basic operations). Also, "drawing a line in an empty plane is possible using this system" seems to me to be OR. The way I understand it is that if you want to draw a line, first you need to choose a point (one operation) and then you may draw a line through that point (at least two basic operations).

Also, the concept of the Géométrographie is not well explained in the article. Quoting (and translating) from Lemoine's direct work: "the fundamental idea of the Géométrographie, that is the methodological search for simplifications [of geometrical constructions], [...]"

Incidentally, Lemoine always uses the letter K (not L) for the Lemoine point, and he always capitalizes the word Géométrographie.

Last but not least, the "abstract relation of equations to tetrahedrons and triangles" really ought to be clarified. Saying that "what he called transformation continue (continuous transformation), which related mathematical equations to geometrical objects" is too vague. Citing Lemoine's words about the "transformation continue": "The idea of the transformation continue is nothing else but making explicit, for the triangle and the tetrahedron, the principle of continuity of Carnot"

These points should be dealt with. Thanks, Randomblue (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that I'm not so busy, I really should deal with this. I'll do so right now. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 00:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you mind clarifying the "principle of continuity of Carnot"? I can find nothing on it - the only Carnots that would be related Lazare Carnot and Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot - neither of which seems to have done any work that I can find on it. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 01:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fact tags
I removed all of them - they were cited, and the "not in citation given" was remedied - the citation was, in fact given, at the end of the paragraph. I duplicated it to make it more clear. I'd appreciate it if anyone who would like to add another contact me first, odds are that it's already cited. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 00:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

?? on Dates of Birth, Graduation, & Age
"Early Years", first paragraph the birth year is given as 1840. Second paragraph says Lemoine was accepted into Ecole at age 20 (1840+20=1860). Third sentence in paragraph says "After graduation in 1860 ..." Does this mean he graduated the same year that he was accepted for entrance?? This is my first post, so I hope I have helped create a consistant article, rather than just make a fool of myself. I did enjoy the article very much, and spent an hour following links, learning about this type of geometry. Thanks. DUD2008 (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for the compliments. I'll have to check this against my most reliable source, and will probably have an answer in a few seconds. I suspect the problem is with the year of his graduation - perhaps a typo? Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 15:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed - the correct year is 1866. Thanks for your help! Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this article really of high importance?
I'd like to put this article back to Mid importance, at most. It seems to me that he might be an important figure for high school teachers, especially in earlier generations, but not for contemporary Mathematics as a whole, neither for students nor for researchers. Honestly, he is one of the two people among all the top and high priority Mathematicians I have never heard of. At the same time, there are low priority people like de Moivre, Lyapunov, Huygens, Chebyshev... Any objections? GaborPete (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems there are no objections, so I have changed to "mid". --GaborPete (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Émile Lemoine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216045627/http://faculty.evansville.edu/ck6/bstud/tg.html to http://faculty.evansville.edu/ck6/bstud/tg.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

La Trompette
I've just created La Trompette (musical society), a chamber music society founded by Lemoine. Perhaps this article could expand on Lemoine's activities as a amateur musician. It seems that La Trompette was quite influential. This paper is a good starting point (accessible through the Wikipedia Library). intforce (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)