Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archimedes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

[edit] Archimedes

self-nom This is currently a Good Article, and has been through Peer Review. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment These minor stylistic fixes needed:
  • Some hyphens in reference titles should be en dashes
  • I think some image captions are missing full-stops at the end. They seem to be complete sentences.
  • "Μη μου τους κύκλους τάραττε - Do not disturb my circles" - en dash needed rather than hyphen
  • "300 degrees Celsius (572 degrees Fahrenheit)," - degrees Fahrenheit should be abbreviated
  • Some dates ranges have hyphens rather than en dashes. Epbr123 20:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Y Done (all)
  • Support. A perfect article on the greatest mathematician who ever lived. This must be a FA. Eubulide 09:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support — Comment — Virtually all of the references are missing publication dates. The "Further reading" section should be using {{cite book}} templates for commonality. There may be some overlinking and redundant linking in the article. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Changing to support. A fine article. — RJH (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply I have done my best on the publication dates for the web links, but these are not always available. I have changed the book references to the cite book template. If any of the links in the article are redundant, feel free to remove them. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please see below for some issues I saw. Karanacs 19:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Thank you for fixing these issues. Karanacs 02:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Need citations for the following assertions:
      • "Archimedes used his correspondence with the scholars in Alexandria as a way of making his results known."
      • Archimedes' last words
      • Rene Descartes rejecting the Archimedes death ray story
      • several paragraphs in legacy section
    • In the inventions section, I would move the information about the Archimedes' Screw to the paragraph where you speak about the Syracusia.
    • There is a red link for Siege of Syracuse in the body of the article, but it is fine in the lead. I meant that the link should be changed to a blue link like the lead, but this is okay, I guess. Karanacs 15:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd make the death ray paragraphs into a separate subsection in this section; there is a lot of information about it
    • Can the external links section be trimmed? This is very long. Y Done (all)

Karanacs 19:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Reply I have tried to avoid overdoing the inline citations as virtually every statement in the article can be checked through the citations, wikilinks and external links that are already given. Archimedes published many of his results as letters to Dositheus, this is uncontroversial as stated in the article. The objection of Descartes to the death ray is addressed at [1]. The redlink for the Siege of Syracuse has been fixed. I'm not sure if the external links section is too long as it is designed to give a good range of links to explore, and in my view is not excessive. I'll have a look at some of the paragraph issues raised. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The point of inline citations is for increased verifiability. When you are representing someone as having a particular opinion, you absolutely need to provide an inline citation for that. You never know if someone in the future is going to further trim the list of external links or remove information from other articles and then people wishing to verify facts in the article would not be able to do so. It is also against wiki policy to use another wikipedia article as a source; relying on someone to follow a wikilink to verify a fact has the same problem. Even facts that are uncontroversial can be unfamiliar to readers who might want to verify them. I strongly encourage you to add the inline citations for the issues I raised. Karanacs 15:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixes needed; the Writings section needs a lot of cleanup. See WP:ITALICS and WP:LAYOUT on the placement of see also and main templates at the top of the section. Direct quotes need to be sourced. Publishers are not identified on all of the sources; some of them appear to be personal websites, unclear. External links need pruning per WP:EL,WP:RS, WP:NOT. Centuries and solo years need not be linked. Please delink common words known to most English speakers per WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT; they make it harder to get through the text and dilute the high-value links, examples only: flammable, plywood, cart, gear, there are many more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I've made a sample edit to demonstrate the incorrect use of the main template (those articles can be directly linked) per WP:LAYOUT; there was one I couldn't fix because the title wasn't the same, so I left it to you. I'm still not sure why part of one of the quotes is italicized (pls see WP:ITALICS). The missing publishers mostly appear to be www.mlahanas.de , which is Lahanas personal website, and which specifically says: "The content of the site www.mlahanas.de is provided 'as is' and without any guarantee of suitability or marketability for a specific purpose or any other entailed guarantee." and so on[2] (doesn't inspire as to WP:RS). There's also a missing publisher on http://cnx.org/aboutus/ (which appears to be some sort of Wiki?). MathWorld also looks like some sort of anyone-can-contribute Wiki, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/about/ Hopefully you can replace all of those with published, reliable sources. The reliability of sources is a big one, per 1c; unless you can resource those items or establish reliability for those sources, I'll have to switch to oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I think you are reading too much into Lahanas' legal boilerplate; most disclaimers look like that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I've struck my oppose, since all of my objections have been addressed, but I hope others knowledgeable of Archimedes' work will examine the sourcing as well. I'm still concerned at the number of personal websites used, even though these websites are often to University professors. Peer-reviewed, scholarly or hard print sources would be preferable to Dr. Joe Bloe's personal university webpage, but others may agree the info cited to those pages is not controversial or that those sources are acceptable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Thanks for striking the oppose. I have tried to avoid overciting university websites, but they do at least meet WP:RS. As Wikipedia is an online rather than a print encyclopedia, the references can be checked immediately, rather than an obscure academic book that most people would never buy or read (some academic books are very expensive). The references have also been chosen for ease of understanding. For example, the pulleys reference at [3] was given because it has clear diagrams showing how mechanical advantage is obtained through pulleys. Fortunately Archimedes is an uncontroversial subject and anyone with access to Google or the local library can see that there is little wrong with the factual statements in the article. Incidentally, there are surprisingly few books about Archimedes in print in 2007, and those that are can be found in the Further Reading section. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • As far as I can see, there are only four direct quotations, two from Archimedes; all four were sourced when Sandy posted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • General comment on all the above. Karanacs has raised some useful questions about citation, although most of this is from Boyer, as is now indicated; his suggestions for rearrangement should be considered. If the deathray is consolidated into one area, that can be followed by one footnote listing all the sources that apply only to it, which would be a service to the reader. Eubulides' enthusiasm is noted; this is a good article, but not beyond improvement. The rest of this deals neither with substance or with the writing. None of these "defects" impair the reader's appreciation of the article; fixing all of them would not change it from a good to a great article. Furthermore, referring to an entire guideline, and expecting the nominator to read your mind as to what part of it you think applies, is not helpful to anybody; it does not surprise me that Ian seems somewhat lost in the jargon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Substantive comment De Re Publica is a dialogue; it is explicitly set more than a century before Cicero's time. The "man named Gallus" is the astronomer Gaius Sulpicius Gallus. Please rephrase. (And while you're doing so, do add the standard form of reference 1.21, which you can deduce from Latin Library.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Similarly, which chapter of the Synagoge contains "give me a place to stand..."?
  • Greek should have accents, and eureka should have a rough breathing (it is possible to leave them out, but if so, kinaso should be treated the same way."
  • The accuracy in the average is not the remarkable thing about Archimedes' roots; that simply means that the upper and lower bounds were approximately of the same order (not surprising, if he was, as is most likely, using the continued fraction). The remarkable thing is that the errors all had the correct sign to be rigorous bounds; see Petr Beckmann's Pi.
  • Did you consult Tzetzes yourself? If not, you should cite whatever source you actually used (Boyer?), "citing Tzetzes Chiliades, II.35,105." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The force of myriad as "uncountable" is not "infinite" but "indefinitely many". (And it's not exactly the same Greek word as the number, either.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply I have done my best to address the points raised above. Common words have been delinked and the external links section pruned considerably. Nearly all of the references are from academic websites and the publishers are given in the cite web templates. The only personal website used as a reference is the site of Michael Lahanas, which is very well researched. I was puzzled about the italics and "see also" points, as they seemed OK to me. The Tzetzes reference is from T. L. Heath, and I have been unable to get beyond the reference for the Pappus quote already given. I removed some of the section about Archimedes' roots, and rewrote the part about the myriad. People have commented on the spelling of the Greek language quotes before, but as I am not an expert here it is better for them to be tackled by someone who is. The article avoids implying that Cicero was a contemporary of Archimedes. Thanks for pointing out that Gallus was Gaius Sulpicius Gallus. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Then you should cite Heath; to do otherwise is to claim to have checked a source you have not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Please spell Hiero, as is customary in English.
    • The error is to suggest that Cicero is a contemporary of Gallus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Y Done (all)
  • Reply Hopefully fixed all of the points raised today. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I sense an overuse of contains, having just searched for one. Please check to be sure that all of them are the right word (for example, to say that De re publica merely contains a fictitious conversation is misleading; except for small prefaces, it is the conversation), and whether some of them can be varied. It is all too easy to fall into a mannerism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Y Done
  • Reply I have reduced the use of the word "contains". It now appears only once in the article. On a different note, can anyone help with this text from Cicero describing the planetarium that Archimedes is said to have built:
“ XIV. Then Philus said: I am not about to bring you anything new, or

anything which has been thought over or discovered by me myself. But I recollect that Caius Sulpicius Gallus, who was a man of profound learning, as you are aware, when this same thing was reported to have taken place in his time, while he was staying in the house of Marcus Marcellus, who had been his colleague in the consulship, asked to see a celestial globe which Marcellus's grandfather had saved after the capture of Syracuse from that magnificent and opulent city, without bringing to his own home any other memorial out of so great a booty; which I had often heard mentioned on account of the great fame of Archimedes; but its appearance, however, did not seem to me particularly striking. For that other is more elegant in form, and more generally known, which was made by the same Archimedes, and deposited by the same Marcellus in the Temple of Virtue at Rome. But as soon as Gallus had begun to explain, in a most scientific manner, the principle of this machine, I felt that the Sicilian geometrician must have possessed a genius superior to anything we usually conceive to belong to our nature. For Gallus assured us that that other solid and compact globe was a very ancient invention, and that the first model had been originally made by Thales of Miletus. That afterward Eudoxus of Cnidus, a disciple of Plato, had traced on its surface the stars that appear in the sky, and that many years subsequently, borrowing from Eudoxus this beautiful design and representation, Aratus had illustrated it in his verses, not by any science of astronomy, but by the ornament of poetic description. He added that the figure of the globe, which displayed the motions of the sun and moon, and the five planets, or wandering stars, could not be represented by the primitive solid globe; and that in this the invention of Archimedes was admirable, because he had calculated how a single revolution should maintain unequal and diversified progressions in dissimilar motions. In fact, when Gallus moved this globe, we observed that the moon succeeded the sun by as many turns of the wheel in the machine as days in the heavens. From whence it resulted that the progress of the sun was marked as in the heavens, and that the moon touched the point where she is obscured by the earth's shadow at the instant the sun appears opposite.[298]

 ”

Which globe did Gallus demonstrate in this extract from De re publica? My interpretation is that it is not the one built by Archimedes in the Temple of Virtue. Did Archimedes build the globe demonstrated by Gallus, or was it built by someone else? ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Loeb translation says clearly that there are two, both by Archimedes; one carried off by Marcellus for himself,which Gallus showed to Philus at the home of Marcellus' grandson; the other, more famous, which Marcellus consecrated to Virtue. Eudoxus and Aratus are responsible for the design of an orrery, but not for these. I will see if the Latin differs when I have time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments: Not a full review, but some suggestions. I think the lead can be further improved (see WP:LEAD), especially that second paragraph. It may be worth expanding a little more, too. Under "Biography," that second paragraph could probably use another in-line citation, as well as the paragraph beginning with "The tomb of Archimedes..." The part later about the "Death Ray" ends with several citations, following a few long sentences without any citations at all. Can you spread the wealth here, so to speak? The Mathematics section could definitely use more citations. Same thing with the first half of "Writings" - On Conoids and Spheroids starts with an incomplete sentence: "A work in 32 propositions addressed to Dositheus." I wonder if the "Legacy" section should use bullets? Otherwise, it might be worth combining into one or two paragraphs rather than short single-sentences 'graphs. The note, "When not listed above, consult Carl Benjamin Boyer..." would prevent me from supporting this as FA. That kind of vague sourcing doesn't cut it for me, especially because it can't be fully guaranteed - who knows what other editors may add in the future? Other than those points, though, this is a decent article. If these comments are addressed and I'll give Archimedes a support vote. --Midnightdreary 02:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Hopefully tackled the points raised here. I compressed the Legacy section but found that it became unclear, so left the items it contains in separate paragraphs. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose Comment The only thing that detracts from this article is the prose. There are no major issues, but it is only "just good enough." Not compelling or brilliant, and I find some passages a little awkward. Everything else about the article seems to be OK except the Field Medal image, which seems to be lacking some source information. Fix the image problem and I will remove my objection. Jeff Dahl 21:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    What's wrong with the source information for the image? The image description page clearly shows that the image was taken from an International Mathematical Union web page with an explicit reference to an image description page on the IMU's site which clearly says that the image carries no copyright but requests that photo credit be given (which our page does). Nihiltres(t.l) 03:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • When I opened the image it had a tag saying it was missing source information. The burden is on the uploader or user to provide source information, and then remove the tag. Now that that's taken care of (thanks!), I'll strike my objection. Jeff Dahl 04:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
In fact, why not use the high res images they provide? Jeff Dahl 04:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done I've added a larger version of the Fields Medal which can be found at [4]. I was surprised by the comment that the image was incorrectly tagged, since it has been credited to the IMU for some time, and is public domain as long as an acknowledgement is given. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes changed to Support as requested by nominator Leranedo 07:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I found it exceptionally informative and will keep it for the future.
  • Extraordinary significant subject matter.
  • Try to add more internal links.
  • Add more to External links. There are a great deal of quality sites out there. Leranedo 06:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Reply Thanks for your support (the change from "yes" to "support" was requested just in case there was any confusion). --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:35, 19 October 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.