Talk:Mathcounts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Good article Mathcounts has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mathcounts article.
Article policies

Sandbox, ur answeres are wrong, i had to fix one of yours, and thats the only one i looked at.. o yea dont erase it richard ni's gonna win (2007)

Just being watchful: Those problem examples don't happen to be copyrighted, do they? If they're copyrighted, they have to go. Mike Church 01:40, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure. I removed them, just to be safe. --Lst27 21:39, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I think we can include some sample problems as fair use, just as we can quote from a book. Also, does anyone know the exact ratio of boys to girls at various levels of competition? I would estimate that when I was at nationals, there were about 200 boys out of 228 contestents, but I have not seen exact figures. Dan Gardner 18:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dan: I don't know it off the top of my head, but as I was a competitor last year (my team had 3 boys and 1 girl, by the way), I can find out. Just...give me a few days, as I don't have the yearbook here with me. --Fermatprime 01:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

At the New Hampshire 2006 State Compeitition, there were three girls in the top 12. I know there were at least three others competing, but there weren't that many. --lioness713 19:09, 13 Mar 2006

By the way, are you sure about the prizes? I know that I got a TI-89 in 2003, so I doubt that TI-83+ Silvers have been given since 2001. --Fermatprime 23:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Am I sure? No, absolutely not. I'm probably thinking of something else. Fix it if you know it's wrong. Aerion 00:35, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's typically the newest TI model, regardless of line. The 84-silver was the prize last year, I believe - I got a TI-92 in... 1996? (feeling old) (ESkog)(Talk) 00:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I know that the National Countdown round was modified for ESPN to include more problems per match: however, I don't know the numbers. Can anyone help?69.204.162.12 07:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] mathcounts 2006

Supposedly the Mathcounts National Competition 2006 is held in Arlington, Virginia from May 11-14. And Lockheed Martin sponsors it

[edit] Individual vs. Alternate

What is called an Alternate in this article is becoming known as an Individual- I was an "Individual" in 2005, and there was a bit of confusion about what to call it. to quote the Mathcounts website:

"A school may register one team of four and up to four individuals for a total of eight participants."


This is what my school did, and called them, but we also had several two or three alternates, whose scores did not count at all, unless one of the top eight was unavailable. Individuals' scores are counted, but are not part of the team score unless one of the top four is unavailable. Anyone else think this distinction should be added to the article? -lioness713

[edit] Winning doesn't assume highest score

Individual scores in the written competiton determine seeding for the countdown round, but the place in the countdown round (formerly ladder-style, now single-elimination) actually determines the final placing. I'm not sure if it's clear or not otherwise in the text of the article. --Christopherlin 00:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

really? i was about to leave a message here about that. I just placed fourth (fourth overall written score) in my state competition (no bragging intended) but gave no correct answers in the Countdown Round. I received a Fourth place individual trophy, and not advancing in the Countdown Round didn't change anything. I'm not sure how it works at the National Level for being the Champion, tho.

The countdown round method is confusing overall, though. I've seen it done three different ways. At my Chapter meet in 2005, it was done in ladder style. This year, it was single-elimination. However, it is done in a group at the state level, at least in New Hampshire. The first seven of the top twelve to get a problem correct advance. Then a certain number of those seven, and so on, until the winner of the Countdown is found. Lioness713 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

whoops. found a website that confirms what you were saying: the National Champion is the winner of the Countdown Round. Probably so they can show the special part on ESPN... thanks for catching my incorrect editing 216.107.230.230 02:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. That happens a lot on Wikipedia. School, chapter, and state all use individual written score to rank. Nationals is different. I see that I wasn't clear on that in my comment above. Sorry about that. When I did MathCounts, Countdown was done as group for chapter and state, and ladder at nationals. I forget how exactly our group Countdown worked, but it's been a while.
Fourth place means you're going to Nationals, right? Congrats and good luck there! BTW, don't forget to log back in when making edits/comments. --Christopherlin 12:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
From discussion on a forum with lots of people who had gone to MathCounts Nationals and people going this year, it's pretty obvious to see there are many different styles of doing Countdown and ranks even at states. For example, some states take the top 4 of the former Nationals style competition (top 10 seeded by written score, ladder style tournament) to determine who goes to Nationals while in my state, the top 16 go up and go single elimination in a random seeding with the top 4 written scores advancing. SandBoxer 01:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Anybody want to check the MathCounts handbook? I think there was a requirement that the 4 going to nationals were the written. --Christopherlin 03:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
According to the 2006 copy of the handbook I downloaded from the MC website, "The four highest-ranked Mathletes and the top team coach from each State Competition will receive an all-expenses-paid trip to the National Competition." That we knew, but what constitutes "highest-ranked"? It's not that clear. (And thanks, Christopherlin, for the luck. I need a lot of it!) Lioness713 01:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Nope, it doesn't have to be the written but it is in a lot of states. For example, Michigan uses Countdown round to decide the four that go to Nationals under the old 10 person ladder format (which means only top 3 written are guranteed) while Connecticut uses written only. SandBoxer 21:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem examples source?

In the comment above (at the top, from two years ago), there was a question about whether they were copyrighted. That question still applies, but I think they can be used as fair use if the source is given. (Or even if they are now public domain, one should give the source for the sake of verifiability.) Does anyone know where they came from? Are they from a particular year's exam, or given as samples of the sort of level to be expected? One may as well give the answers, too (as footnotes, perhaps). Rigadoun 15:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sprint

Chapter: 2005 Chapter #30 Answer: 59

State: 2005 State #26 Answer: 76

Nationals: 2003 Nationals #30 Answer: 1/8

Target

Chapter: 2005 Chapter #7 Answer: 33

State: 2005 State #4 Answer: 112,875

Nationals: 2003 Target #4 Answer: 22.5

Team

Chapter: 2005 Chapter #9 Answer: 0.039

State: 2005 State #4 Answer: 8

Nationals: 2002 Nationals #7 Answer: 4(155151513-fixed)

Countdown

Chapter: 2005 Chapter #79 Answer: -7

State: 2005 State #1 Answer: -72

Nationals: 2005 Nationals, was the problem Neal Wu won with Answer: 168

I'll do all the problems later if I have time and put them on the talk page. SandBoxer 00:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems done SandBoxer 00:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology Problems

I realized that some lists are old-to-new (1984-2006) and some that are new-to-old (2007-2002. I think they should all probably be old-to-new, but give me your thoughts. FruitMart 02:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Chen on Regis & Kelly?

I just deleted a section from the article. Until someone can verify that he did appear on Regis & Kelly, that section will have to stay out of the article. RJaguar3 03:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I just found a verifiable source. RJaguar3 01:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 6, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: There are some typos, like a space omission in "Countdown Round" (which I fixed), and some others. Also, a few more wikilinks throughout the article would be helpful. (I know that there isn't a lot to link in this article, but try to incorporate more links.) Y Done
2. Factually accurate?: There are some uncited statements, most notably the "Examples of problems" section. Perhaps it should be removed, as Wikipedia is not a resource for math problems; an external link to example problems could be given in the "External links" section. Also, one of the cited links, [1], redirects to [2], which requires special membership to access; such links should be avoided. Y Done
3. Broad in coverage?: Please provide information on its history; how did it all begin? (I don't mean a list like Timeline of Mathcounts, but rather a description.) Y Done
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: I would advise that you provide a photo of people competing at a MATHCOUNTS competition. Readers will wonder: What is the atmosphere like? Also, on the description page for Image:MathCounts trophy.jpg, there is a deprecated {{PD}} tag, which should be replaced with something more specific. Y Done


When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed some of the issues. I'll work on the others now... Nousernameslefttalk and matrix? 03:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely done. I'm resubmitting for GA now... Nousernameslefttalk and matrix? 03:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA

The article has addressed all issues that were brought in its last nomination, I can not see a reason why it can not be promoted to GA now. One note though, I'd prefer to see some more pictures in this article to improve its visual attractiveness. Λua∫Wise (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)