Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers[edit]

List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): eviolite (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is comprehensive with sources for each individual entry in addition to general sources, explains the relationship between these two types of numbers, and is illustrated with pictures. Also, this would be just the third current FL of WP:WPM. I combined portions of List of perfect numbers (now histmerged into this article) and Mersenne prime to create this list (in addition to my own work). Please note that this is my first nomination for any type of good/featured content, so it is likely I may have missed one or two things, but I believe it meets all the criteria and may only need minor copyedits. eviolite (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Overall, this is a really strong first FL nomination (and a really interesting one!). Just a few comments:

  • The lead seems to mix {{math}} and <math> – since the fonts are slightly different, try to pick one or the other.
    • According to WP:MATH: Therefore, the common practice of most members of WikiProject mathematics is the following: Use of {{mvar}} and {{math}} for isolated variables and very simple inline formulas; Use of LaTeX for displayed formulas and more complicated inline formulas. But I do understand that it looks a bit weird.. I've changed the singular use of <math> to the {{math}} template. This equation is more complex than the other ones, so it's still a bit awkward, but is it better?
  • Lead uses lots of parentheses; try to remove some where possible
    • Done
  • <sup> or {{sup}} should work in citation titles; try using that instead of "^"
    • Done
  • Use "−" (minus sign) instead of "-" (hyphen) in equations
  • Rename "General references (for all entries)" section heading as "General references" and adjust footnote (a) accordingly
    • Done

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have addressed these issues. eviolite (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: new sig to ping eviolite (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Looks great! RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions to allow screen reader software to 'jump' straight to them without reading out all of the text above them each time; add as the first line in the table `|+ caption_text`, or if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header you can make it only visible to screen reader software like `|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}`
  • The column header cells need to be marked with `scope=col`, e.g. `! class="unsortable" | Rank` becomes `! class="unsortable" scope=col | Rank`, etc.
  • The "primary" cell in each row needs to be marked with `scope=row` (e.g. `| align="right" | 1` becomes `!scope=row align="right" | 1`); this combined with the colscopes allows screen reader software to accurately read out the table as a data table. --PresN 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @PresN: I believe I have addressed these issues. eviolite (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass[edit]

  • Both the images used are licenced as "own work" under suitable licences, and have appropriate ALT text. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass[edit]

  • Version reviewed — 1
Formatting
  • Change "Ref" column from ! class="unsortable" scope=col | Ref to ! class="unsortable" scope=col | {{abbr|Ref.|References}} (adding abbreviation).
    • Done
  • All the citations under the "Ref" column need to be center aligned, using align=center. I have done one as an example. Repeat the same in all the reference cells.
    • Done
  • Be consistent with linking the author or not. Either link all, or none. If you choose to link, please
  • Be consistent with including publication location with books/journals. Few have (like Ref#13 - "Washington", Ref#14 - New York), while others don't. I'll suggest to remove all.
    • Done, I think -- not sure about aliases of that parameter, so might have missed one
  • Ref#6 – Needs a page number, or a page range.
    • That book has no page numbers on Google Books, added chapter= instead
  • Ref#15 – "O'Connor, John J," – there seems to be an erroneous comma after 'J'
    • Done by Citation bot, added a period for consistency
  • Ref#16 – 'Calendarium ecclesiasticum - BSB Clm 14908' – Needs an endash (–) instead of a normal dash (-)
    • Done
  • Ref#31 – Add URL access level as "limited"
    • Done
  • Ref#37 Change "Los Angeles Times" from "Publication" to "Name of publication"
    • Done by Citation bot
  • If all the sources mentioned in the §General references section apply to all the entries, why not merge them, and add them as a common source on the top of column (As done here). Do let me know if you want any help here.
    • I've done this but please note that some of the sources miss out on a few entries due to age, I assume that's not really a problem though
      • We do have individual sources for all entries. Definitely not a problem. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability
  • No issues. We do have few very old sources (1603), but majority of the sources are recent ones.
    • that's a primary source -- the general refs (and any other source in the ref column) serve as secondary sources
Verifiability
  • Ref#32 – Can we have any identifier? Link? ProQuest ID?
  • Ref#39, 41 – Same as above
    • For all three: Added links. For Proquest: marked url-access as subscription. I'm not quite sure but it seems the Gale ones are accessible even when not logged in?

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: I believe these issues are resolved now (though see my notes on each one). Thanks, eviolite (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good. Pass for source review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kavyansh.Singh[edit]

  • Apart from the above source review, I definitely support this list for promotion as a featured list. It is really interesting to see a math list at FLC. I am not an expert, but was quite familiar with the topic, and found this list easy enough to understand. Great work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment
  • Some of the refs are centre-aligned but others are not..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: Kavyansh.Singh did that one as an example, I've since centered all of them
  • Support - I got nothing else :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Mersenne_primes_and_perfect_numbers/archive1&oldid=1052943680"