Wikipedia:Featured article review/Carl Friedrich Gauss/archive1


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

The article was removed 21:17, 4 January 2008.

Review commentary

 * Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, and major contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King of Hearts (talk • contribs) 01:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

1b. The early years section is very short; perhaps add the story about solving 1 + 2 + ... + 100? (Remember to cite it!) Also, a Legacy section should be added, describing his main contributions to future mathematics. 1c. This article is severely short of citations. There are only four inlines, and many places are tagged with fact. 2a. The lead should be expanded slightly as the other sections are expanded. As a whole, the article's still pretty good; some parts just need to be fixed (emphasis on 1c). -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't. It's not true; if the incident happened at all, the actual problem was a more complicated arithmetic progression, and 1 to 100 was (Bell's?) way to explain what Gauss did without six-figure numbers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations are the main issue, certainly, wow, the standard for FA has increased tremendously after all these years. This really looks crappy next to newly promoted FAs (Leonhard Euler for example). I was the guy who put this through FAC when it passed the first time, and I'm probably in the best position to find all the references again. However, I'm a bit busy now, and I'll only be able to start work in the middle of December. Borisblue (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, it hasn't; footnote counting has merely become fashionable. Most of the existing cn tags are frivolous. This has also missed the "righteous stamp" business, which could badly need a citation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll leave this here til the fifteenth, per Boris. Marskell (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), citations (1c), and LEAD (2a). Marskell (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments I disagree with some of the "cn"s, but the unsourced quotations definitely need citations. That apocryphal story about correcting his father at age three sorely needs one as well. 69.202.60.86 (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove, still insufficient. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.