Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/E (mathematical constant)/1

E (mathematical constant)

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/E_(mathematical_constant)/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review not found
 * Result: Kept. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, including whole subsections, which means that GA criterion 2, which requires nearly everything to be cited, is not met.

I also think that this article could perhaps use more detail (Pi is around 4x the length) but I am not an expert. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Three things.


 * 1) The assertion that "whole subsections" are uncited is untrue: every subsection has at least one citation inline.


 * 2) On the question of detail, the article seems to cover "the main points" as required by GACR; comparison with the massive topic of Pi is inapposite, in the manner of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.


 * 3) On the unstated issue of whether and how "math" – mathematical working – should be cited, I think that before every single math GA is dragged to GAR, the question should be fully aired on an appropriate Wikipedia forum to obtain consensus. The principle that we don't cite "The sky is blue.[21][22][23]" should hold here, as "all the truths of mathematics are tautologies" (Wittgenstein). In other words, any piece of correct mathematical working, like "6/3 = 2" says no more than "A = A", which is about as "the sky is blue" as it is possible to get. If working is to be disallowed, then it is hard to see how even the best, clearest, and most helpful all-math articles can meeat the criteria. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , the reason every subsection has an inline citation is that substantial work has been done over the past few weeks by editors such as XOR'easter and Dedhert.Jr; this was the article's previous state. WP:CALC, which I am fully in agreement with, covers your third point.
 * I wholly believe maths articles can meet the criteria—see Derivative, which the same two users recently kept at GA standard. The subsection "computational example" there is uncited and allowed per WP:CALC. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Good to know there's been progress, and it certainly seems to be a good thing for that to be documented on this page also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is good enough to keep. Many thanks to XOR, now very sadly retired, and to Dedhert.Jr. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)