Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ars Conjectandi/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:07, 22 June 2008.

Ars Conjectandi
This article is a bit short, but I think it's comprehensive - one piece of writing, though important in the field of combinatorics, isn't a huge subject. This has had a peer review, and I'd like to think it's ready for FAC. Self-nominator. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments


 * I didn't know that translations for italicized titles did not also have to be italicized? That's interesting to note.
 * "reputation [...]"." – The [...] can probably be removed since there you don't include any more text from the quote after that.

Gary King ( talk ) 19:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Addressed. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 21:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * The semicolon before "Pascal's triangle" in the "Background" section seems wrong. Additionally, the last two sentences of the "Contents" section seem like they should be joined with one.
 * In the next paragraph, de Witt is breaking at the line in my setup. Perhaps a non-breaking space would be appropriate?
 * Bernoulli's name is spelled as Bernoulii in the "Contents" section. You might do a quick look through for typos.
 * I would recommend using "upright" for the portrait-orientation images (all except the title page, I think) rather than hard-coding the size as is done currently.
 * Why are some of the citations enclosed in parentheses?
 * It may again be my setup, but the formula in note 11 is almost unreadable at that size. (Increasing the font size on my screen did nothing to improve it.)
 * In the "References" section, you might look at changing some of the parameters to show the original date of publication and the publication date of the version cited. (In cite book it would be with year and origyear; not sure what it is in citation.) It's a little jarring to see Bernoulli cited with a 2005 date and de Moivre's work cited with a 1716 date and an ISBN.
 * Also, it looks like some of the references are missing some info. The Bernoulli and de Moivre works (and possibly others?) are missing publisher information. If the Shafer work is a book, I'd expect some sort of locator aid like an ISBN or an OCLC.
 * The prose is clear and explains adequately (to me, at least) the concepts and topics covered.
 * Nice use of images to support the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Harv template, which is apparently used in conjunction with citation, automatically puts parentheses. I suppose it's the Harvard citation style. For the ref 11 thing, it's an image in LaTeX - I can't really do anything about the size. I could make it a lot bigger, but then on the majority of displays it would be far larger than the surrounding text. It looks perfectly fine on my display, and apparently on those of the peer reviewers. I've fixed everything else. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 21:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as the ref11 thing, I suspected that was the case.
 * As for the Harvard referencing, I'm no expert on the Harvard citation style, but my understanding (seemingly reinforced by looking at the documentation) is that Harv should not be enclosed in tags. Perhaps someone more well versed in this style can provide an answer or some guidance. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, I'll change it to Harvnb if you like. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 21:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the Shafer ref isn't a book - it's a self-published paper. Per WP:SPS, it's also a reliable source - Shafer has notable work published by third parties as well, and hence it's reliable. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 00:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments, not ready to support it or not. The article does seem short and a little light on details for a FAC, so I'm not sure I can support it at this time. I'll check back in as this article proceeds through the nomination process to see if I can support it after it's had some massaging. JRP (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider expanding the lead, per WP:LEAD. Look for more details from the "Background" and "Content" sections which would help to make it up.
 * Who is "William Dunham" and why is his opinion important?
 * Putting the formulas on separate lines, rather than awkwardly in the text, would make it flow better. You may have to rewrite a bit to make it flow that way, but for the non-mathematically inclined it would also improve the prose.
 * What do you mean by "fertile year"?
 * Prolific is probably the intended word. Sentence reworked nontheless to reduce duplicity. ~ Jafet Speaker of many words 16:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Does "beginning" need quotation marks?
 * In terms of completeness, is there more information on the composition of the work? What parts were done when and why it was not published in his lifetime?

Responses Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 00:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll expand the lead.
 * Dunham is a notable mathematical author and professor of mathematics (though no one has created an article on him yet), and he's written quite a bit on this particular book.
 * So mention it; for example: "The text has been considered a landmark on probability by mathematics professor William Dunham  [redlink this?] , who has written extensively on it." Otherwise Dunham's introduction appears incoherent. ~ Jafet Speaker of many words 16:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say "extensive" - something more moderate. It's certainly enough to mention, but "extensive" overdoes it. I'm at a loss as to a better word, however. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've put the formulas on separate lines.
 * It's explained in the text quite clearly. Try reading it more carefully.
 * Removed.
 * Short answer: no. I'm quite sure about the former. I'm not so sure about the latter; I'll do some research and see if anything turns up.

Comments
 * http://www.secondmoment.org/index.html what makes this a reliable source?
 * From the about page, and the qualifications of those writing the articles, I believe it's a reliable source by WP:RS. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 16:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't hurt to source to something besides Brittanica Online. Odd to for a generalist encyclopedia like WP to use another generalist encyclopedia as a source.
 * Well, it does cite mostly others, and I see nothing wrong with including Britannica Online as a source for minor, uncontroversial information. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 16:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen discussions go both ways on using general encyclopedias. Not a big concern for me, but others might be concerned, and just brought it up so you'd be aware. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise sources look okay, and web links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments I have made some minor edits. This is not a subject I know much about, but I feel the article is not comprehensive. Ars Conjectandi is more than a paper in the modern sense of the word. To get the bigger picture, I had to cross-check with Jacob Bernoulli, Bernoulli number and Bernoulli trial, (the last one is not mentioned in the article). I'm all for summary style, but the article is a little too lean for FA. Graham Colm Talk 15:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose the Contents and Legacy sections could be expanded somewhat, but I'm not sure what else you have in mind. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 16:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Bernoulli trials are described in the article, just not named. I'll amend that. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 16:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Flamebait by a passerby (oppose; bring to WP:GA)

This article has potential but does not yet meet the FA criteria. I have taken the liberty of comparing the article's current state to the criteria... If the above seems harsh, remember that I may or may not be tired and emotional, and also that the FA criteria is difficult to meet. The article appears to have met WP:GA (I suggest you nominate it there) and is probably A-class as well (so bring it up for assessment), but is definitely a distance away yet from featured article quality. ~ Jafet Speaker of many words 17:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is—
 * 2) *(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
 * 3) **The article contains no obvious language errors, but some phrasings are a bit awkward. The article could use some tweaking. Example: in "on which Bernoulli based his Ars Conjectandi" in the Background section, "his" is redundant. The flow could be smoothened further by hammering it into "on which Ars Conjectandi is based". Overall the prose is competent but not "brilliant" or (the following is admittedly more subjective) "engaging".
 * 4) ***I gave most of it a copyedit; the other half I'll do later today. Read up to the "Legacy" section - how's that? Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) ****The rest has been copyedited. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) *(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details;
 * 7) **How long is Ars Conjectandi and what language is it written in? (It seems to be Latin, as with the language of the title, but why prescribe assumptions?)
 * 8) *(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge [...]
 * 9) **I believe FAC sources need to be checked against WP:RS and WP:V, has this been done?
 * 10) ***Yes - Ealdgyth's work, as always. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) **Many statements need to be clearly attributed.
 * 12) ***For instance, the phrase "The date which historians cite..." is not very useful if no historians are mentioned and referenced, and does not make the assertion that follows it any more trustworthy than if it had been omitted.
 * 13) ****What exactly do you do if your source says in exactly these words: "The date that historians cite..."? Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) ***The main Contents section of the article claims that his theory of combinatorics was the "most notable" subject covered by Ars Conjectandi. It is an unquantified and unqualified claim to me, and a candidate for sourcing.
 * 15) ****That's probably OR that I unwittingly inserted. I'll try to find a source, since it seems self-evident to me. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) ***"Abraham de Moivre was particularly influenced by Bernoulli's work. He wrote on the concept of probability in The Doctrine of Chances.[reflink]" Sneaky, an unsourced statement followed by a superficially-related but sourced one.
 * 17) ****In one of my other references; I duplicated the ref after that sentence. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) **Once nontrivial and unattributed claims have been substantiated I think the article will see the need for quite a few more footnotes as well.
 * 19) *(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
 * 20) **The opinions of this William Dunham are suspect. Who is he and how seriously should we take his repeated endorsement of Bernoulli's text?
 * 21) ***See Jrp's comments above. I'm doing further research into his writings at the moment and will provide a better response soon. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) *(e) skipped; probably met.
 * 23) It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
 * 24) *(a) the lead section also exhibits the problems mentioned under the 1a and 1c headings above, but looks otherwise good.
 * 25) *(b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help);
 * 26) **Article needs more structure. Right now its table of contents is only one level deep. The various subtopics in the article should be expanded and sectioned. I am not saying this is a requirement for FA status, but that I believe the final, FA-quality version of this article, if it is attained, will probably be thus expanded. In other words, I think it's a good idea. Paragraphing is generally good although a couple of the longer paragraphs look like they could be split further.
 * 27) ***A subsection could probably be allotted for each book of the paper. I'll look into this. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) *(c) citation style appears very consistent.
 * 29) Images. It has images and other media where they are appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. [...]
 * 30) *Usually it is better for an article to have lots of colour, but do the portraits add any encyclopedic value to the article, considering that the mathematicians in question are very notable and have been bequeathed their own Wikipedia articles?
 * 31) Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * 32) *Subjectively, I think that an article on this subject could (and should) be much more involved. Particular candidates for expansion might be
 * 33) **the content of the text. Discussion of the topics it covered should be more detailed: more individual proofs, results and demonstrations instead of general subfields of probability.
 * 34) ***Like I said above, I'll give each book it's own subsection and this will definitely require expansion of the coverage.
 * 35) **the impact of the publication. Are there actual quotes from other mathematicians attesting to the quality and timeliness of Ars Conjectandi? Can concrete examples be given of advances in mathematics that were influenced by the text? (The portion about de Moivre's proof of the central limit theorem, if it mentions that Bernoulli's formula was obtained from Ars Conjectandi, looks like one.)
 * 36) ***Dunham is a notable mathematician as noted above; there are definitely other quotes, though. I'll look for those. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Need to close the peer review. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I fixed sourcing/information for several images, but did not remedy one: Image:Cardano.jpg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP (source is a hitherto deleted de.wiki page).  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 19:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the page on Commons, it's a "Scratch by himself"; doing a quick search reveals that it's from this university's website. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does indeed say that. The PD claim, however, is using an author lifetime + 70 years criterion (nice of someone who's been dead 70 years to contribute). The obvious falsehood notwithstanding, that source does not have publication or author information.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, misread. ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 20:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How exactly is a peer review closed, then? It's already in /archive1 and the oldpeerreview template is on the talk page. I'm not sure what else there is to be done. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I should have commented here before. The missing step was to replace the Peer review page template to remove the review from WP:PR. I did that yesterday in response to Ealdgyth's comment. Geometry guy 20:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for the moment. As said above by someone, good article nomination would be in order first. *Prose could be better (e.g. two times "covered" in the 1st paragraph of the contents section) **Fixed. I'll give it another copyedit, which should fix most of these types of problems. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC) *"The subject of probability in Europe" sounds awkward to me. **Changed. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC) *"Pascal also published his results on Pascal's triangle, which bears his name today" - the latter is fairly obvious. **It sounds awkward simplified, but I've gone ahead and changed it anyways. *Every Latin word should have a translation (in the text, too, not only in the lead). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "These rational numbers were the coefficients of the expansion of as an exponential series" -- were??
 * In general, why do you use past tense do tell what the book describes? I'm not a native speaker, but this strikes me as weird. The book still exists, right? The problem is not only grammatical, but also mathematical. You state, for example, that Bernoulli numbers are more linked to number theory than to probablity. In (modern) number theory, Bernoulli numbers play a minor role.
 * I'll give the article a tense-check. They may play a minor role in modern number theory, but they're barely related to combinatorics at all. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Bernoulli's formula for the sum of powers of integers" should be spelled out. What is the formula?
 * Will be included in the expansion of the book-subsections. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, I feel that the article is relatively weak on mathematics. For example, the weak law of large numbers should also be stated. How does it relate to the (strong) law of large numbers? The latter question could be answered in the legacy section. How did he prove the theorem?
 * Same as above. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article does not state why the book is called "Ars Conjectandi". What meaning did this word have at the time?
 * You write "Bernoulli particularly developed Huygen's concept of expected value.", but then you say that B took a special case of Huygen's work. This is not quite a development, but rather a simplification.
 * It's not a simplification; developing specific cases is still developing. I strongly disagree with the term simplification for this. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I agree that developing a particular case is not a simplification. Perhaps a short explanation what Bernoulli actually developed (in addition to Huygen's work) would give the impression you want? Another point that I'm just being aware of: you never tell the reader what an expected value is. It is wikilinked in the lead, which is good, but in the Contents section a prose-style explanation of the meaning of the formula seems necessary for a lay reader to understand what goes on. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Explained. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the Shafer, Glenn (2006) reference? A PhD thesis?
 * See my comments to Bellhalla above.
 * OK. Hm. Don't you have any more precise information on the paper? A URL, a journal, a website of the author? Otherwise this kind of referencing is not so helpful for the reader, cause he doesn't know where to look up the stuff you have written. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Added a link, changed publisher field to his homepage. How's that? Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, this is article (apparently unpublished), not a book. We should not be using unpublished articles, since the author may well revise them upon review; but we should at least use the right format: Roman text in quotation marks, not italics. If the citation templates won't do that, dump them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm satisfied with this. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which don't? Even the clumsy throwing in of civilibus, moralibus, oeconomicis is translated, although we should be bold enough to just translate and throw the original into a footnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. My bad. I was thinking of civilibus etc. (I really did not see this translation afterwards) and of De ratiociniis in aleae ludo in the contents section, not seeing that the translation is indeed provided above. Actually, I think throwing the latin into a footnote would diminish the article's quality. Why not just Latin (English) also at this place? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the translation is perfectly adequate; the only reason to include the Latin at all is in case some reader would doubt that the English covered the Latin.
 * Another comment: a reference for the work of Huygens discussed in the text (just a collected works edition if extant) would be a plus. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not yet The Bernouilli numbers are the coefficients of the expansion of as an exponential series $$\begin{smallmatrix} x/(1-e^{-x})\end{smallmatrix}$$ is not an appropriate way to define them. It is of course true; but Bernouilli did not know it, and it is not why they are important, to him or to us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rewritten to satisfy myself. I don't think the explicit formula belongs here; but if it does, the form in Faulhaber's formula, with B1 = +.5 may be best. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rutgers does not catalog the Shafer, whatever it is; I don't see it in WorldCat. (Where was it self-published? Not Rutgers University Press, which doesn't count. ) Fortunately, it is only being used for five assertions, four of which are statements about the Ars itself, which could be trivially verified by consulting the work.
 * See above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A list of editions and translations seems to be missing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Bernoulli titled the work Ars Conjectandi because in it, he conjectured about the nature of theoretical probability. Unsourced, and I don't believe it. That's not what Ars Conjectandi means.
 * He was the first mathematician to compute a theoretical probability (as opposed to an empirical one), This is an expression of opinion, on what constitutes a "theoretical" probability. It could be made, as phrased, almost equally well about Newton in one direction and Laplace in the other. (The context suggests that what is meant is something about distinguishing an expectation as a numerical value; but if so, we should say so, and cite a source.)
 * The compound reference to Shafer is, now we can see the paper, inaccurate in detail. It sources 5 items to pp. 3-4; one is actually on p.2. The problem, however, is the last one; before this, the use of combinatorial methods to determine theoretical chances of outcomes of an event were referred to as "equity", and "probability" was used in a strictly empirical sense. This is not what Shafer says; rather, Shafer argues that
 * In 1684, a probability was an argument, not a number between zero and one. There was no presumption that events or propositions or things (“thing” is the word Jacob usually used: res in Latin) had numerical probabilities. It was presumed instead that they have arguments pro and con. Jacob had to make the case for the existence and meaningfulness of numerical probabilities. And he had to reconcile that case with existing presumptions about what probability meant and how it worked.
 * This is not empiricism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * General comment. I've hesitated to comment here because I'm not sure my view is "actionable". In short, I seriously doubt that this article is comprehensive. I would expect the article to have much more on the mathematical content of the Ars than is presented here. It may be worth comparing the article to Emmy Noether, which is also up for FAC. The latter article may be too detailed in terms of its mathematics, but it certainly shows that an article can provide both biographical information for the general reader, and carefully sourced detailed content for the more dedicated or expert reader. I believe this article needs to do something similar, at least in outline. Geometry guy 22:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The only version of the Ars cited is a separate translation of part IV. Has the nominator looked at the whole thing? It is not as easy to come by as many classic mathematical texts, but I see that there was a translation (The Art of Conjecturing, together with Letter to a friend on sets in court tennis, translated with an introduction and notes by Edith Dudley Sylla.) in 2006. Its notes should be sources for much of this article, and better sources than many of those here cited. I recommend Interlibrary Loan. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, in light of all this I should probably withdraw this nomination to work on the article a bit more. I'm not sure how - do I just ask Sandy to archive it? Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 22:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just saw this note; I'll get it tomorrow. Hope to see you back soon!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.