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 by User:SandyGeorgia 19:07, 22 June 2008 [1].

Emmy Noether[edit]

Nominator(s): Scartol • Tok

This article has been intensively rewritten, refined, and revised for the past two months by myself (mostly the bio) and WillowW, with some extraordinary assistance from the kind folks at WikiProject Mathematics – particularly Geometry guy and R.e.b.. It has also received two peer reviews, from JayHenry and Karanacs.

There are some minor tweaks still coming on her contributions to invariant theory and elimination theory, but we feel that it is stable, polished, and ready to be Featured. – Scartol • Tok 15:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(My input was very minor. R.e.b. contributed much of the mathematics; I just tidied. I hope to help out with this review. Geometry guy 22:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates. Otherwise, sources look good, links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Yeah, this was the work of other folks; I usually don't use citation templates. sigh.. I'll try to get it all sorted. Thanks. – Scartol • Tok 17:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only found one – a cite book – and changed it to a non-template citation (since it only appears once). Please let me know if I missed others. – Scartol • Tok 17:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You got it. The cheaters method of checking is to hit the "edit this page" tab and scroll to the bottom where the templates used on the page are listed. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'll check the lead's prose later. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these. I feel (and others I've worked with on the article agree) that infoboxes often distract from more than they add to an article. This is such a case, I feel.
I agree that "1932" is an unusual section title, but it was a year of turning points, and while I'm not opposed to changing it, I wonder if others agree that it should be changed. I'll scan for contractions and unattributed passive voice as you've mentioned. Thanks again! – Scartol • Tok 22:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the section title to "Recognition", since I realized – after being stubborn here earlier, heh – that the events of '32 all have to do with her finally receiving some recognition. – Scartol • Tok 12:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, ((persondata)) isn't an infobox - read the template. I'm fine with the other things, though. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad. I'll add it tomorrow. Thanks! – Scartol • Tok 03:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added. – Scartol • Tok 12:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else said this in another spot, and I wonder where you might suggest moving it. (The other editor never responded.) Maybe before "Expulsion"? – Scartol • Tok 22:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved "Personality" to above "Moscow", to provide a transition between the main part about Göttingen and the more detailed sections on Moscow, Recognition, etc. Hopefully this is more suitable? – Scartol • Tok 12:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments An article on a female mathematician! Yeah! Overall, I thought it was quite good. I can't pretend to understand the mathematics sections - I tried very hard and read very slowly, but some things escaped me anyway. I think that these "maths" are just too far beyond my meager abilities. I have a few questions and suggestions:

  • I do. Changed to: "Often described as the most important woman in the history of mathematics..." – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So much less Beavis and Butthead. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not. I had changed it to this from something else which was not really accurate, and tried to cobble something together. I've rewritten the first part of that paragraph to make it all work and be relevant. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, it does, doesn't it? Revised to "...her work served as the foundation for the second volume...". – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter. Changed. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Brewer & Smith book (the most recent source I used – can't speak for maths people), they're all italicized. I'll see what I can do about translations. (I'll need help from the maths people.) – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess math papers are more important than papers in other fields. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh. I'm recruiting someone to translate these. – Scartol • Tok 16:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the help of Jakob.scholbach, I've added English translations of all of her works mentioned in the article text. If they need to be added to the References section, I have no idea how to do so, since the ((Citation)) template doesn't have a "translation" field. I'm open to ideas and/or guidance. – Scartol • Tok 18:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the titles need to be translated in the references. Awadewit (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I reversed the order of the sentence: "Known for being clever and friendly, Emmy was near-sighted and talked during childhood with a minor lisp." – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Rearranged and reworded. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably, although both the Dick bio and the Kimberling chapter indicate that it may have been a confluence of issues (Jewish heritage, gender, perhaps even personality). I worry that being too definite risks being inaccurate or suggesting certainty where there isn't any. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, never mind! Damn my quest for certainty in an uncertain world. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Edited for concision. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's meant to indicate that she prioritized helping others over what she could have done (ie, demand tribute). I've reworded it to: "...helping them develop their careers at the expense of her own career." – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "in other instances" suggests that somehow the algebra textbook incident was different - it doesn't seem that different, though. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "She sometimes allowed...". – Scartol • Tok 16:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this keeps coming up, I'll try to weave it into the fabric of the article. I'm not sure how to do it, but I'll give it a shot. (I like it as a separate section myself, but as Mayor Quimby once said: "If that's the way the winds are blowing, let no one say I don't also blow!") – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've integrated "Personality" into "University of Göttingen". Hopefully it's more seamless. (Less seamful? More seemly? heh) – Scartol • Tok
  • But apparently some mathematics is more abstract than others. Although I know absolutely nothing about it, the books I've read indicate that – just as some forms of literary theory exist at quite a distance from the texts they discuss (as you know) – Noether's work was very abstract and hard for some people to connect back to the numbers themselves. Perpahs WillowW can more effectively explain this. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice to try and explain this to the lay person somehow. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely. :) As a foretaste, it's true that all math is an abstraction. But imagine an anstraction of an abstraction, and an abstraction of that, and yet another abstraction beyond even that. You might think that such super-abstract theories would not allow for many truths to be derived about them, since they have so few properties and offer few features or "handles" for the mind to grasp on. Noether's genius lay in deriving many essential truths for such systems; and they, being so general, instantly applied to all the less generalized mathematical systems, making them very powerful theorems indeed. Willow (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it help to use the Einstein-relativity example at this point? There is a quote from Einstein saying he is surprised things can be understood in such a "general way". Awadewit (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a great quote, but Noether's theorems, as astonishing and general and influential as they are, are not representative of what people mean by Noether's gifts for abstract thought, at least from my initial reading. The tools for deriving them were already there, most notably Lie groups and the [calculus of variations]]. It's her later work, after 1920, that is more representative of her "abstract thought", her unique approach to begriffliche Mathematik to which she gradually converted other mathematicians and where she made the tools herself, by choosing to define novel mathematical objects in tasteful, productive ways. I'm going to try to capture that in a new section, but it may take a few days. Willow (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that "general" could probably go, but I'd argue for keeping "abstract" – again, just as some scientific work focuses on specific life forms or climate systems, others try to conceptualize abstractly what the underlying rules are behind it all (like the grand unification theory). It seems to me that her work became focused on a mathematics form of the latter. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we somehow describe the abstractness of it for people like myself? Is that even possible? Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the smallest doubt that we can do it together. :) Willow (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Changed to "universal". – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that, so of course I have no idea what you mean? :P "Primitive" here was trying to convey the idea of "basic" or "generalized", of stripping away ancillary details of a system to arrive at a core concept, sort of like Plato's ideals. For example, many things can be represented or described by a group; by inheritance, all those things partake of the properties of their group, and conversely, properties of the group must be found in every instance of it. Does that make any sense, or am I speaking mystically as usual? ;) Willow (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, and in my opinion "universal" does nicely here. Would you rather use "generalized", W? – Scartol • Tok 18:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The maths people will have to take care of this, and the following three items. We're working on 'em. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These have all been remedied. Huzzah! – Scartol • Tok 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the maths sections are still being expanded (from what I can tell), I believe this problem has been addressed through reorganization (it's been retitled as "Algebraic invariant theory") and the addition of info. – Scartol • Tok 02:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do folks still think this needs work? It looks remedied from where I sit. – Scartol • Tok 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's almost exactly what the source says, the History of Algebra by B L. van der Waerden. He doesn't explain how himself, and, honestly, I don't think I'm going to really understand that before the FAC closes. I'm having a hard enough time catching up on pre-Noether mathematics, without having to understand the consequences of Noether's math for late 20th century mathematics. :P Maybe one of our mathematician friends can help out? Willow (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On it; but please be patient until tomorrow. Willow (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch. Remedied. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, why not? The ((Citation)) template doesn't have a "language" field, so I had to stick it in at the end of the line; I hope this is okay. (I assume you're referring to the hypertext links, not all of the German-language entries.) – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I was referring to all of the German articles. I thought there was a MOS rule somewhere that all foreign-language references had to be marked with the appropriate language. Maybe that has changed, though. Ah! I can't keep up! Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always for your eagle eyes. I look forward to having your support. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're my inspiration. I wish I had your eyes, and the brain behind them. :) 'Til later, Willow (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely forgot I hadn't supported yet! My major concerns have been met and I know the editors will continue to work on the accessibility issues. Awadewit (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I truly like the article. I'm not into FAC and standards, so I can't decide whether support or not. Just one comment: I strongly suggest that you supply the urls of the historical papers. (See my comment at the article's talk page). http://digizeitschriften.de has practically all historical papers available, for example "Rationale Funktionenkörper". Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this resource, but I can't seem to make it work with the ((Citation)) template. I believe it's due to the fact that the URLs contain [brackets], which interfere with the MediaWiki software's processing of the code. For example, the URL for the actual article "Rationale Funktionenkörper" is:

http://www.digizeitschriften.de/index.php?id=loader&tx_jkDigiTools_pi1[IDDOC]=514934

If anyone has any ideas on how to overcome this, I'm all ears. – Scartol • Tok 22:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On it, boss. :) Willow (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...done! :) Willow (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Danke, WillowW. Your Fahrvernugen is sehr gut. I don't know how to speak German. – Scartol • Tok 23:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Na, das war ja nett, Jakob! :) Sei mir so gut, und werf einen flüchtigen Blick auf den Artikel, List of publications of Emmy Noether; ist alles richtig übersetzt und alle mögliche Links gemacht? (Ich bin keine Deutsche, das geb' ich von vorn herein zu, aber ich schlag mich so durch, wenn's sein muß — oder ich versuch's zumindest. ;) Wenn alles richtig ist, dann werd' ich das alles übertragen. Jede Korrektur ist höchst willkommen, und wenn wir noch was machen können, um Deinen Support zu gewinnen, das tun wir ja gerne. Schönen Dank im voraus! :) Willow (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what the preceding text says, so unless someone tells me differently, I will interpret it as a significant contributor support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck per translation of the German from Dr pda. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of further comments (already present at the article talk)

I removed it, as you suggested. As you say, the association is rather rough; I only included that to give the reader a sense of continuity in the exposition. Willow (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. Willow (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be good for some readers, but not for others. As mentioned on the Talk page, I'm intending to put much of that into a daughter article Introduction to the algebra of Emmy Noether.
That's a very nice offer, Jakob! :) I have very limited access to textbooks myself, and I don't know which ones are the textbooks that everyone cites, so that'd be very helpful. :) Willow (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been added to the References section. – Scartol • Tok 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these, LB. We'll take care of them as soon as possible. – Scartol • Tok 11:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've fixed what we can at this point. More repairs to come! – Scartol • Tok 14:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

))

  • Ooof. Since it was a photo of a younger E. Noether, I assumed it was in the public domain. But of course that's not enough – and I have no idea how to find out the copyright status. I'm out of ideas here, except to remove it – and that would be such a shame. No picture of her at all? =( Ideas, anyone? – Scartol • Tok 22:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is in the public domain - you just needed a source. I have found one and updated the image page. Took five seconds - easy! Awadewit (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smashing. Thanks, A. – Scartol • Tok 02:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to the sort of collapsed boxes at the bottom of Isaac Newton, for instance? If so, what do you have in mind? (There aren't any "University of Göttingen" boxes, heh.) – Scartol • Tok 02:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Originally it was four, but the fourth was very long (and we agreed that it needed all of its info), so the fourth was divided into three separate paragraphs. I actually feel that the lead – long though it is – does a good job of summarizing the article. The page is divided into two major sections: biography and mathematics/physics contributions. I feel that the lead encapsulates these, but of course I'm open to ideas from others on how to proceed here. – Scartol • Tok 13:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the lead is an excellent summary of the article. The last three paragraphs work either split up or as one paragraph, in my opinion. However, Wackymacs, perhaps you could indicate what areas of the article are under- or overrepresented in the lead? Awadewit (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is a really nice article, but I am actually coming across more serious issues such as redundancy, which suggest this fails criteria 1a for "brilliant" prose. Here's an example from the lead: "Most of Noether's mathematical work was focused on algebra, and has been is divided into three "epochs". In the first epoch (1908–1919), she made important contributions contributed to invariant theory, most notably Noether's theorem, which has been called "one of the most important mathematical theorems ever proved in guiding the development of modern physics".[4]" - The first use of 'important' is unnecessary when it is later said in the quote. There are also many other issues which other reviewers have raised. To me, this does not look like its ready just yet. Have you considered withdrawing to work on this some more? I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, I've run through the top few sections; you're right, there are a few idle words, but overall, I think this is worthy prose. I'll return later to run through the rest. TONY (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that the following proposed revision is not grammatically correct: "In the first epoch (1908–1919), she contributed to invariant theory, most notably Noether's theorem..." We would have to say "...most notably with Noether's theorem..." (Which is awkward, in my opinion.) Thus, the current wording – "she made important contributions..." is appropriate, as I see it.
If I could quibble about another point: The use of "has been divided" as opposed to "is divided" is appropriate as well, in my view, since we're borrowing the structure which her colleague Hermann Weyl created. Noether herself never made such distinctions, and (obviously) the structure has been imposed by an individual. Just as we usually say "Balzac's novel Le Père Goriot has been called his most important novel" to indicate that such a claim has been made by others, I feel that this particular wording is fair to use when discussing the division of Noether's work into different epochs. (It is unattributed passive voice, which I generally don't like, but insofar as we get into who divided it later in the article – and the lead is plenty long enough already, heh – I don't think it's a fatal error.)
Some other issues about wording have been raised (I'm going to attack the overlinking later today, if all goes to plan), but I feel that they've been isolated examples and that the prose is generally solid. Of course if others feel differently, I will find someone to do a complete copyedit. – Scartol • Tok 17:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another run-through by a new pair of eyes will not be disadvantageous, correct? I assume you, Scartol, want this article to be the best it possibly can? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've asked one of the WP:LOCE for a copyedit. I will say that I'm eager to fix anything I can fix myself, so if you can highlight any areas that you feel need special attention, I'll be happy to have a look. – Scartol • Tok 15:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

))

  • Any chance we could get some specifics on what's wrong with the prose? LaraLove just did a copyedit. (I asked her to watch for redundant prose and overlinking especially.) What needs fixing? – Scartol • Tok 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you actually look at that link, you'll notice no textual changes were made outside of the lead. The only prose changes were ones in the lead, from what I can see. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you said that already. But you didn't answer the question. Any chance we could get a list of specific non-lede changes that you feel are still needed? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that when a person does a copyedit and doesn't change a sentence or paragraph, it means that the copyeditor believes the sentence or paragraph to be of high quality and doesn't need revision. This is what I usually do; perhaps others work differently? I assumed this was the case with LaraLove's copyedit. – Scartol • Tok 17:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Good work. Requirement for professional formatting. Otherwise good.

  • I've reviewed each link in an attempt to fix this. Please let me know if I've missed any that should be removed. – Scartol • Tok 17:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to comment to honor the apparent hard work of the editors involved in the article. I read it through, though I am unable to support because I do not understand the concepts described in the article that are vital importance to its overall cohesiveness. But I am unlikely to do that due to my own failings. I must leave it up to someone else to determine if they are sufficiently explained. However, I found her biography engaging and interesting. I would like to have had lunch with her. That would have been fun. Best of luck. --Moni3 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment: I pointed my partner to this article because she has a math minor and an affinity for this sort of thing. For the comprehensiveness of the mathematical concepts, she said it was as well-written and sufficiently explained as could be since there is no language available to break it down any simpler than it already is, in any concise manner. However, she did think that the Third Epoch was considerably less detailed than the previous two, as if the editor(s) had run out of steam at the end, or didn't understand it. Hope that, uh, helps. --Moni3 (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • We're working on these. – Scartol • Tok 17:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, spaced en dashes are, according to the MOS, an acceptable alternative to unspaced em dashes. – Scartol • Tok 17:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes indeed. Also fixed. Thanks for your attention to detail! – Scartol • Tok 17:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

))

Gary King (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. My eyesight is so good I could count the number of acne on a forehead. Gary King (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing (pop). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The image from Moscow State University is of the main building, a postwar example of Stalinist architecture. It was completed in 1953. It seems incongruous to have an image of building which did not then exist representing her tenure there in 1928–29. Kablammo (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. Will try to find a different pic. – Scartol • Tok 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While doing a minor copy-edit, I saw that the lead is, in my opinion, more detailed than necessary. I removed the titles of her papers, as it seemed unnecessary and distracting to list them in the lead. I recommend removing any quotes, as well as any insignificant details that are explained in the body, i.e. her students were sometimes called the "Noether boys". Lara❤Love 18:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you in advance for your copyedit, Lara, especially on such short notice. However, the question of the lead has been laboriously discussed, refined, debated, and analyzed, as you will see in the resolved items under Talk:Emmy_Noether#Comments_from_Randomblue. While I really appreciate your attention to detail, I'm afraid this is exactly why I balked at the idea of another copyedit when Wackymacs first suggested it above. (This is nothing against you, Lara, please understand – the comments are coming from about 700 different directions. I apologize, LL, for not explaining this beforehand – it would be hard for you to have predicted this.)
Now, how should we proceed? I've made it clear elsewhere that I preferred the lead as it was. Awadewit said on the talk page:

These papers are clearly some of Noether's most important works; ergo, I think we should mention them. I would also endorse keeping "Noetherian rings" - how many people have a mathematical concept named after them? Very few. To a reader like myself who doesn't know anything about the math, a detail like this indicates how important Noether is.

Ozob concurred:

Noetherian rings are one of the most important concepts ever introduced in abstract algebra, probably only second to the basic definitions of rings, modules, and so on. They absolutely need to be included in lead; I think they deserve a hundred-point type sign saying "THESE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT!!!!!"

I don't want to be stubborn, but it seems like a case of "We decided it ain't broke..." to me. – Scartol • Tok 19:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through the process, I appreciate your frustrations! :) As someone who doesn't know the math, I found the article very interesting. However, when reading the lead and making my suggestions on it, it was about readability. While the papers may be important, for someone reading the lead to get an idea of what the article is about, the titles are not significant. It's similar to a sorority article I reviewed several months ago which listed the names of all the original members. Yes, they were important, but for readability, no one wants to read a list of names. I agree that the mention of the rings is important, and a big deal. The mention of boys however, not so much. So, for me, it's a matter of deciding what's most important and significant and including it in the lead in a way that flows best for the reader.
Also, I believe going into specifics in the lead should be avoided. The point of the lead it not only to summarize the article, but to draw the reader in... to make the want to read the entire page. Summarizing by giving only the key information, and touching briefly on each topic, gives the reader the basic information while leaving them with a hunger for the details. That is what brilliant prose in a well-constructed lead is to me. Lara❤Love 19:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Randomblue (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Specifics should be included in the lead. We don't say "Charles Dickens was a famous novelist" and then neglect to mention his famous novels and we don't say "Albert Einstein was a famous scientist" and fail to mention what he discovered. Without the details, the reader just gets a vague of sense of Noether as a famous mathematician - that is not enough. What was she famous for in mathematics is the key question. Awadewit (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we need to be specific! Adding not-so-specific titles like "Proof of a main theorem in the theory of algebras" takes up a lot of space in the lead and isn't interesting. The lead should focus on, for example, the content and impact" of these papers; that is the engaging material.Randomblue (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting the lead should be vague. There's a difference between summarizing with the basics and being vague. ...her students were sometimes called the "Noether boys", is interesting, but not particularly important, for example. It's also not mentioned in the body. It should be moved there. I removed the list of titles and Willow has improved the prose, so it reads much better now. Lara❤Love 17:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure if this has been discussed before, but "Often described as the most important woman in the history of mathematics" seems contentious to me. Surely Ada Lovelace and Maria Agnesi are, at the least, more well-heard of than her? indopug (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment here could easily lead to an argument about who is most important, whether "well heard of" and "important" are equivalent, and whether Lovelace's contributions were primarily to mathematics, but I think that misses the point. What we should be discussing here is not whether she really is the most important but rather whether it is factual to say that she is often so described. Do you think this claim is insufficiently sourced? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution would be nice; "According to X, 'Noether is the most important...'" Since Einstein seems to have believed it, why not attribute it to him? Since he is so popular, his statement regarding her importance would carry weight with a lay reader, while at the same time disassociating her supreme importance from being "fact". indopug (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the whole question of "Greatest. Mathematician. Ever." is a little silly, but it is part of the historical dialog about Noether, so we pretty much have to cover it. It does help readers appreciate the importance of her work, and fire their enthusiasm for learning about her. :) My own feeling is that no attribution is needed in the lead, especially not having seen any contention in the published literature. Although we all have our personal favourites (e.g., your examples, Hypatia, Sophie Germain, Sofia Kovalevskaya, etc., etc.), the present consensus of mathematicians and mathematical encyclopedias seems to be for Noether, as you can see from the "Assessment" section. I appreciate the advantages of citing Einstein, but that wouldn't reflect that consensus; also, despite the New York Times headline, Einstein was not a mathematician and "did not pretend to be", according to Pais' biography. Willow (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK no worries; I honestly hadn't seen the Assessment until now. FWIW, having read that section, it looks a little silly having seven almost-consecutive sentences (incl. the two blockquotes) that are just variations of "Greatest. Mathematician. Ever.", besides revealing little additional information. While sentenes such as "In a 1964 World's Fair exhibit entitled "Men of Modern Mathematics"..." and "In his obituary, fellow algebraist B. L. van der Waerden says..." are interesting, the others are "consistently ranked as one of the greatest mathematicians", "greatest woman mathematician in recorded history", "greatest woman mathematician", "greatest woman ever to work in the field", "greatest woman mathematician up to her time", "best woman mathematician of all time", and "greatest mathematicians (male or female)". Is it possible to trim that section and remove a few of those sentences? Maybe cut down on the use of the G word? It just seems redundant and repetitive to the point where the reader goes "oh ok already she's the best-ever, lets move on". indopug (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're totally right; the last thing the article needs is a section written by Comic Book Guy! ;) Hoping that you like the condensation, Willow (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Link the first instance of Einstein in the article. I'll review the rest tomorrow. indopug (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images:

  • Since the image is from before 1910, I'm not sure why we need the author, who is unknown. Isn't it out of copyright? Awadewit (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly hi! 00:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to work on these tomorrow. Thanks for your patience, everybody! – Scartol • Tok 20:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Status? Have you pinged Kelly, Tony1 and Wackymacs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      There's been no progress on the first image yet. Concerning the second image, the uploader seems to be a fairly prolific Commons contributor from Germany, who ought to know the relevant copyright law. I expect a clarification and/or modification of the license on Commons would suffice: e.g., it may be similar to this one, where the author (presumed to be Wolfgang Sauber) never disclosed his identity. Geometry guy 19:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went looking for an image with a clear copyright, to insert it as a Fair Use image (since I've not found anything that's clearly PD). I finally found one, and now I need to scan it in. I will be able to do this tomorrow. I pinged Tony1 several days ago, and I just asked Wackymacs to drop by. I'll bug Kelly after I scan in the Fair Use image tomorrow. – Scartol • Tok 12:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found the image online, so I've uploaded it to Wikipedia and added it to the article, along with a Fair Use Rationale on the image page. I believe this remedies the image problems. – Scartol • Tok 13:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

))


  • I guess someone fixed this. Could you clarify? Right now it uses the html ndash code. – Scartol • Tok 11:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Ozob fixed it. I didn't check the source code but the different dashes has different sizes, and the difference is visible on the screen. See for example the dash in ref 78, it's too small.
Fixed. Ozob (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, I'm really confused. On my screen, the last ref is 103. – Scartol • Tok 11:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Must have been ref 67... but Ozob corrected it.
Fixed. Ozob (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ozob (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ozob (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ozob (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ozob (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed in three places; I don't see any other non-serial commas. Ozob (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never a more heinous guffaw in the history of FAC. =) I'm not well-versed on how this is supposed to work, so I put spaces in everywhere I thought they should go. Someone who knows what they're doing should check and see if I'm right. – Scartol • Tok 11:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you had a good laugh. Yes, it all seems correct now (Ozob corrected most of it)
It's given immediately prior, after the sentence "was developed in Austria." Reference number 86 at present. Should this be moved? Ozob (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved.
Works for me. Ozob (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randomblue (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, it works for me now as well.
It's a journal abbreviation; I've added the full citation. As an aside, does anyone know if it's possible to wikilink a URL with brackets? As in http://www.digizeitschriften.de/index.php?id=loader&tx_jkDigiTools_pi1[IDDOC]=465901? Ozob (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See percent-encoding. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe this is an option for us. My understanding is that we're not allowed to alter copyrighted images. – Scartol • Tok 11:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care whether this is an option or not; what kind of attitude is this? If we can make the article better, lets just do it! :) However, if indeed we are not allowed to alter copyrighted images, then there isn't much we can do...
That is my understanding as well. Scartol, pls consult on Awadewit on this; I believe it's similar to Joseph Priestley. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MOS#Images - when an image is right-facing, it should be placed on the left-hand side of the page. Flipping the image is, IMO, a travesty, as it changes the artwork. We don't alter quotations and we shouldn't alter images, either. Awadewit (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a crime to reflect images. Yesterday's featured article Common Treecreeper had a least one reflected image, see image 474px-Certhia_familiariscroppedmirror.jpg. Randomblue (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When an image is of a generic member of a largely-bilaterally-symmetric species, it's no crime, because some other individual of that species could equally likely look like its reflection. But if it's of an actual person, it shouldn't be done. Any individual person looks different from the left profile and from the right profile, so it would be a change of their appearance to reflect the picture, just as it would be a change to use Photoshop to change their hair color. In this specific instance, she's holding a pen; reflecting the image would change her apparent handedness as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then.
Why has this been capped twice when the image hasn't been adjusted ? See Awadewit's comment above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a first draft of a split here. Is it OK? Willow (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a wikilink to ascending chain condition. Willow (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The postcard has been moved and the description of 1911-1915 period of her life enlarged. Willow (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know for sure, but I doubt she had any. I once heard someone say that when Noether was at Bryn Mawr, there were cruel jokes about how unfeminine she was; but that doesn't directly answer the question, and besides hearsay isn't a citable source. Ozob (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is never mentioned in any scholarship or sources that I have read, I'd say the question is — im-pertinent. ;) Willow (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe WillowW explained this on the article talk page – there are in fact two theorems, and she's in the process of updating the linked-to page. (Correct me if I'm wrong, W.) – Scartol • Tok 11:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be correct, but doesn't help much. It should be fixed before this article reaches FA, it is a bit of a "subarticle".
Yes, I dallied too long before doing that. Please review Noether's theorem and Noether's second theorem and let me know if you think the solution is adequate. Willow (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To simplify matters, maybe, we could merge the two articles.Randomblue (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to be hard enough explaining Noether's first theorem in under 100kB, once everyone gets done adding their favourite examples/proofs/extensions/provisos/shortcomings/etc. Noether's second theorem is just as complicated and fundamentally different in character, even though they both deal with continuous Lie groups. I think it's just asking too much of any reader to try to absorb both in a single article. Willow (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but how are we going to solve the linking problem? If the article you have just created is going to expand greatly, then maybe a disambiguation page would be appropriate.Randomblue (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I frankly don't understand what the "linking problem" is. Noether's theorem, when used unqualifiedly, always refers to Noether's first theorem, e.g., p. 546 of this reference. I have removed all references to Noether's second theorem from this article, to ensure that there is no possible point of confusion for the reader. Willow (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My own feeling is that wikilinks serve the reader, not the other way around. We should not make our readers hunt through a long article for the sole wikilink to an obscure mathematical concept. I'm happy to remove an superfluous wikilink if it occurs in the same or even in an adjacent paragraph; but I reject the requirement that each concept must be linked exactly once. I really don't want to make reading this article any more difficult, and I hope that you don't, either. Willow (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with you, but linking abstract algebra 8 times, for example, is excessive. We should help the reader, but overlinking gives the impression we are considering s/he is stupid.Randomblue (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the hypercomplex mathematics everywhere, I suspect that the average reader won't think that we imagine that they're stupid. ;) I removed a few wikilinks to Noether's theorem, abstract algebra and ascending chain condition. I have to go, though, so would you be so good as to take care of the other three? You can probably handle it faster than any of us, and we trust you to remove the appropriate amount of wikilinks. For my part, I think two wikilinks can co-exist in the same article if they're separated by more than a single screenful. Willow (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edited to trim first instance of this wording. – Scartol • Tok 12:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume this was a holdover from some reorganization. Fixed. – Scartol • Tok 12:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second instance removed. – Scartol • Tok 12:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I usually only cite captions when the info is likely to be controversial and/or is not cited in the article nearby. I don't feel that's the case here. (Citation 54 is right next to the image.) – Scartol • Tok 12:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This refers to Bryn Mawr President Marion Edwards Park, who is mentioned three paragraphs earlier. – Scartol • Tok 12:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

))

You could at least criticize others' prose instead of your rewrite of it. I just rewrote that sentence again after you changed it to the above: it's still as imprecise and waffly and unsourced, but at least it gets to the point, that she didn't just prove something (what the reader would infer by reading your "she concluded that" language) but rather showed other mathematicians how to use chain conditions to prove things. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry David, I though my rewrite was purely superficial. Indeed, I was just trying to remove "other mathematicians" in "show other mathematicians" because this was obvious. Afterwards, I misinterpreted "by allowing them to conclude" as "by allowing other mathematicians to conclude", so I changed the phrasing to make my rewrite grammatically correct. After rereading my edit (which I thought was entirely superficial) I, like you, didn't think it made much sense, so I pointed out the problem here. It reads slightly better now, and the new phrasing will prevent other people from making the same (in fact grammatically correct!) mistake I did. But next you find an edit of mine bullocks, please remember that it was done in good faith. ;) Best, Randomblue (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
We could wikilink chain complex#Fundamental terminology, but I'm not sure that would help the reader.Ozob (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, is this the same as Hilbert's basis theorem? That article talks about ideals rather than invariants of group actions, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that Hilbert never thought about invariants under finite group actions; he only thought about GLn and SLn. "...this [finite group] case of the general problem of invariants was never envisaged by Hilbert himself", page 620 of Weyl, Hermann (1944), "David Hilbert and his mathematical work", Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 50: 612–654, doi:10.1090/S0002-9904-1944-08178-0, ISSN 0002-9904, MR 0011274. Ozob (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff I consider done, I cap it in "stuff done", just above. Randomblue (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, RHB! :) I'm sorry, though, I didn't even know who Leon Lederman was until you mentioned him just now. I just chose two cities at random; well, not completely at random. ;) Samaria falls on Wednesday because I was thinking of the old story about the person who tries to escape Death by riding from Baghdad to Samaria in a single day. A pinch of exotic locales, where the air is full of spices, helps to wake the reader up, to enliven the otherwise rather technical prose. ;) Willow (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you ever meet Leon, you will find that he would greatly appreciate that kind of wittiness! I really did think that he came up with the example. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for asking, but why do we need to hurry? We're making steady progress, according to how much time each of us has to contribute. The lead image copyright and MoS placement issues have been addressed, I believe. Jakob hasn't written again since (I assume) he saw that the concerns of his Comment were addressed, as I've clarified above. The lists from Randomblue here and on the Talk page are being worked down, but they largely seem like small, easily fixed formatting stuff. As far as I know, Wackymacs is incommunicado and his sole request for a copyedit has been fulfilled. In addition, several of us have been gradually adding mathematical material to meet the requests of our friends and reviewers; for example, Awadewit asked us to explain central simple algebras, which I'm working on. If this article lingers at the bottom of FAC for another three weeks, I for one won't feel ashamed, as long as we're moving forward; you can't rush perfection. ;) Willow (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking that the process be rushed; I am asking that the FAC page be kept updated and informed on progress, as I check in daily and it's helpful to know the status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, Sandy – we know how many of these you have to sort through. My understanding is that (aside from Wackymacs' objection in absentia), the only standing actionable concerns are on Randomblue's list. Image:Noether.jpg has been removed from the article, so any questions or concerns about that don't apply. I'm planning to devote some time to the current concerns (which were on the talk page, which led me to believe that they were independent of FA-ness – I guess I was wrong), but Sunday will be my first opportunity.
As for the lead image, I had originally placed it on the left-hand side, but then someone moved it over to the right – and I didn't want to get into an edit war. I forgot to raise it on the talk page, but it has been fixed. Thanks for your patience, SG. – Scartol • Tok 17:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed everything on Randomblue's list that I feel capable of repairing, giving my woeful mathematic stupidity. Thanks in advance to more intelligent people who can take care of the rest. – Scartol • Tok 12:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS I just realized as I read some comments upstairs that it is not going so well for this article. Do you need some technical (math or math history) help? If so, please let me know. I'm busy, but I'll see what I can do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your offer, Fowler. Actually I feel that the process is going well in general – mostly thanks to the indefatigable efforts of my best friend WillowW. The items just above on the list from Randomblue appear to be the only real deficits remaining here – and I'm not capable of doing much with them (because I'm very stupid when it comes to maths). (Willow's making progress, but she's very busy.) If you're able to add some info to the third epoch section, that would be super. Thanks again! – Scartol • Tok 12:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More