Talk:John A. Adam (mathematician)

Book reviews
The book reviews in this article seem excessive. I'm unsold on the need for their inclusion at all, but having upto 11 different reviews for a single work is to much. I don't see the need to have every review for each book, could these be cut back to just the most important two or three per work? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would rather not have any selection criterion for which ones are "important" and which not. Working that way, in general, seems too likely to lead to gaming on some other articles, by determining importance in a way that excludes negative reviews. Additionally, having a broad number of reviews for some of the books gives an immediate impression of how widely they were read, while the ones with fewer reviews may be more specialized, giving useful information to readers. And the ones with many reviews may be candidates for having separate articles that go into more depth on those books, using those reviews as sources, so it is useful to collect all the reviews where a future editor interesting in writing such an article could find them. Therefore in this matter I would prefer being comprehensive over being selective. Additionally, there are three points in the article that justify having an article on the subject at all. One of them is being named as University Professor (WP:PROF), one is having well-cited research publications (PROF#C1), and the third is having multiple book reviews for multiple books. The fact that the large number of reviews is a key component of notability for this article also argues against trimming them down.
 * I believe you right that they are notable under C5 and C1, but I still don't think all the reviews are needed. Specifically as per the first note of C1a in regard to MathSciNet, and Zentralblatt. A few of these are just quick description of the work without and additional judgement of it. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:AUTHOR, not WP:PROFa. Also, see my line above about "useful to collect all the reviews where a future editor interesting in writing such an article could find them": A description of a work is useful for an article about the work, as a source for saying something about what is in the work. I do not generally include MR and Zbl listings that are just a copy of the publisher description rather than a signed review. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit request made on behalf of User:Jadmath
asked me to make this request on there behalf, see User talk:Jadmath for details of the discussion. 1. In the recognition section add that they received the SCHEV award in 2007; https://www.odu.edu/acadaffairs/faculty-awards/schev-outstanding-faculty-award#tab19=1&done1612907281342 2. In the external links section update the home page link to; https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jadam/ -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought you might be interested in this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)