Talk:George Cayley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article is supported by WikiProject Baronetcies.

sounds too much like a high school report. a bit gushy at times. the tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia.141.213.39.73 17:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

first, Cayley...

is now widely acknowledged as the inventor of the science of aerodynamics

then,

his aeronautical work largely sank into obscurity.

aren't these a bit incongruous? he is "widely" regarded as the first aerodynamicist, but nobody today knows why (?). no engineer or scientist thinks like that. 141.213.39.73 17:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

according to the external link:

However, Sir George Cayley's endeavors (including in areas other than aeronautics) have hardly been forgotten, for he is seen as, perhaps, the single most important aerial researcher and theoretician of his time.

141.211.174.217 00:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article says he invented all these things and that his work "fell into obscurity". This is correct. He did good scientific work, and published it, but it was fifty years before anybody followed it up. That is hardly his fault. What have you got against the bloke? User:GrahamN 24 Oct 2004

I have nothing against Cayley, stop assuming that I do. Where did I say otherwise? I said that the article sounded contradictory. I didn't blame Cayley for anything. The article was confusing because it would at one point aknowledge the fame of his achievements, then say that that fame did not exist. I now understand that it was intended to mean he was not recognized widely at first, but today is. That was and is not clear in the article.

Also, please tell me what was wrong with my sentence structure. What do you have against conciseness? And justify the frivolous anecdotes and immature tone which you seem to prefer in encyclopædic writing.

For what I consider to be a good, well-written academic overview of Cayley's achievements, please read any one of J. Anderson's books on the relevant subjects. ✈ James C. 19:09, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

P.S. note that in my quoting of an external link, I was attempting to prove Cayley's recognition and importance today. And I have something against the "bloke"?