Talk:John von Neumann/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 06:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through later and review. Looks interesting! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a difficult article to work with. He has the longest "known for" on Wikipedia. I suppose it makes sense that with all his contributions to mathematics, computing and economics, that MilHist would claim him in the end. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

"His father, Neumann Miksa (Max Neumann) was a banker" - I wasn't sure what the version in parentheses meant here - did he actually use it, or is it just a translation? (ditto later versions)
It is just a translation into German, nothing more. He did actually use it.

Could we go for "Neumann Miksa (English: Max Neumann)" or something like that to make it clear?
Y Sure. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"so it was arranged for him" - to avoid repetition of "so it was..." could this be just "so he took a two-year non-degree course"?
Removed the first instance. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"allowed him to recite volumes of information, and even entire directories," - any particular sort of directories? I'm imagining telephone directories, but not sure...
Not the entire telephone directory. Changed to: his reputed powers of memorization and recall allowed him to quickly memorize a column from the telephone book and recite the names Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"They had one child, a daughter, Marina," - "John and Mariette had one child..." would be clearer here, given the paragraph. Would advise "who as of 2015 was a distinguished professor of business administration and public policy at the University of Michigan."
Yes, but I don't want to call them John and Mariette. Added {{as of|2015}} template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"He remained a mathematics professor there until his death, although he announced that shortly before his intention to resign" -"announced shortly before that"
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"His prewar analysis is often quoted. " - a little unclear. "His analysis of the prewar political situation is often quoted. "?
No, because the point is that he forecast the Fall of France. Reworded slightly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" Von Neumann did some of his best work blazingly fast in noisy, chaotic environments, " - "very quickly" would feel a bit more formal.
Deleted "blazingly fast", which is not supported by the reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"A later friend of Ulam's, Gian-Carlo Rota writes" -"A later friend of Ulam's, Gian-Carlo Rota, writes"
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The axiomatization of mathematics, on the model of Euclid's Elements, had reached new levels of rigour and breadth at the end of the 19th century, particularly in arithmetic, thanks to the axiom schema of Richard Dedekind and Charles Sanders Peirce, and geometry, thanks to David Hilbert." - is there any way of breaking this sentence up a bit, perhaps after "19th century"? NB: I couldn't really see how this linked to the 20th century bit of the paragraph; I wondered if the first sentence was really necessary?
Axiomatization was something of a movement in the late 19th and early 20th century. It all fell in a giant heap. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The axiom of foundation established that every set can be constructed from the bottom up in an ordered succession of steps by way of the principles of Zermelo and Fraenkel, in such a manner that if one set belongs to another then the first must necessarily come before the second in the succession, hence excluding the possibility of a set belonging to itself. " - again, could this break after "Fraenkel"?
Y "The axiom of foundation established that every set can be constructed from the bottom up in an ordered succession of steps by way of the principles of Zermelo and Fraenkel. If one set belongs to another then the first must necessarily come before the second in the succession. This excludes the possibility of a set belonging to itself.
"The second approach to the problem" - I wasn't quite sure what the "problem" was...? Was it still the " adequate axiomatization of set theory "? If so, could we remind the reader?
Y "The second approach to the problem of sets belonging to themselves" Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Von Neumann was motivated by his discovery of von Neumann algebras with a dimension function taking a continuous range of dimensions" - I couldn't work out if the "with" meant that the algebras had a dimension function, or if it related to the discovery.
It relates to the algebras. A von Neumann algebra is generated by its dimension function. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The work of Banach had implied" - could we give him his first name?
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"that the problem of measure " - you're doing a cracking job with the maths bits, so I feel a bit unfair about asking... could we explain what the problem of measure is? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Y The "problem of measure" for an n-dimensional Euclidean space $R n$ may be stated as: "does there exist a positive, normalized, invariant, and additive set function on the class of all subsets of $R n$ ?" Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(c) it contains no original research.

None found so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Appears neutral so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

File:NeumannVonMargitta.jpg - the user KurtSchwitters claims to hold the copyright on this, but as the material dates from Berlin in 1928 this sounds unlikely... the copyright tag needs checking.
I think he just means that he scanned it. I don't know when German copyrights expire, so removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Princeton IAS computer.jpg - I don't think the license is correct here; the National Museum of American History / Smithsonian isn't a Federal institution, and their FAQ page linked to the source states that their images can't be used for commercial purposes. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think he just means that the computer is in the public domain. But there is no Freedom of Panorama in the United States, so removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]