User:RJGray/Sandbox101

Cantor's first set theory article

WP:FAC WP:Featured articles WP:Good articles WP:Mentoring for FAC WP:alt User talk:Iry-Hor#Cantor at FAC WP:Featured article candidates/Featured log MOS:CIRCA Template:circa Template:abbr c. 1870 c. 1870

c. 1870

Go to Template:circa#Examples

Photo info[edit]

Cantor, c. 1870: [1]

Perron, c. 1948: [2]

Fraenkel: [3]

Weierstrass: [4]

Kronecker: [5]

Dedekind, c. 1870: [6]

Cantor's 1st set theory article[edit]

FAC blurb

This article is about Cantor's first article on infinite sets, which contains his discovery of two kinds of infinite sets: countable sets and uncountable sets. The members of a countable set can be written as a sequence; for example, the fractions between 0 and 1 can be written as the sequence 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4, … . The members of an uncountable set cannot be written as a sequence; for example, the real numbers between 0 and 1 cannot be written as a sequence. The significant developments in mathematics that came from the use of countable and uncountable sets justify the importance of this article. Also, it would be good to have another featured article on mathematics: of the nearly 6,000 featured articles, only 18 (about 0.3%) are on mathematics.

This Wikipedia article passed its GA review in August 2018 and its DYK review in December 2018. Since this is my first time nominating an article, I contacted a FAC mentor, Iry-Hor, whose excellent advice led to further improvements. I look forward to more advice that will hopefully lead to a featured article.1st check to see if same version of 1st paragraph on User talk:Iry-Hor#Cantor at FAC.

Hi Iry-Hor, Thanks for spotting the problems with my blurb. Its first paragraph now reads:

This article is about Cantor's first article on infinite sets, which contains his discovery of two kinds of infinite sets: countable sets and uncountable sets. The members of a countable set can be written as a sequence; for example, the fractions between 0 and 1 can be written as the sequence 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4, … . The members of an uncountable set cannot be written as a sequence; for example, the real numbers between 0 and 1 cannot be written as a sequence. The significant developments in mathematics that came from the use of countable and uncountable sets justify the importance of this article. Also, it would be good to have another featured article on mathematics: of the nearly 6,000 featured articles, only 18 (about 0.3%) are on mathematics. RJGray (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

RJGray Nice and good luck at FAC! Let me know when your article is up there so I can support the nomination.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Nominator(s): RJGray (talk) __:__, __ January 2020 (UTC)

Washington State Route 504[edit]

Nominator(s): Sounder Bruce 06:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the highway that leads up to Mount St. Helens, which famously erupted on May 18, 1980, in spectacular fashion. Most of the road was destroyed by the lahar deposits, which tumbled down the Toutle River Valley at extreme speeds. Even today, almost 40 years later, the new highway snakes its way through a landscape that still has scars from the eruption. This article was promoted to GA last year and hasn't changed significantly, but I believe it is up to the standard I set with my previous road FAs. Sounder Bruce 06:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Island of stability[edit]

Nominator(s): ComplexRational (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the theoretical island of stability, a hypothetical set of superheavy nuclides (isotopes of the heaviest known chemical elements) that may be longer-lived than those currently known. This concept has guided research in the field of nuclear physics for decades, with various calculations corroborating predictions and numerous experiments designed to seek these nuclides. Although the island itself has not yet been discovered, experimental evidence strongly suggests its existence and that we are approaching the "shores".

After almost a year of work, a GAN in April passed by HaEr48, and a peer review in July-November by R8R (who contributed to the featured articles dubnium and tennessine, which partly lie within the same scope), I feel that this article is ready to be considered for featured status. Based on the reviews, I believe that it is complete and understandable despite the technical subject. All feedback necessary to complete the home stretch is welcome, so thank you in advance. Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Support by R8R[edit]

I first encountered the article at the peer review. At first glance, I liked the article very much and it only improved since then. I gave many comments during the review at PR and now that they are resolved, I believe the article is in a very good shape. ~~I'll be happy to support its promotion but I'd like to give the article one last glance before then.--R8R (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)~~ My comments have been addressed, I am happy to support.--R8R (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Note a is better off split into two, with the "other observationally stable nuclides can be unstable" part better placed in a separate note after "252 nuclides are observed to be stable (having never been observed to decay)";

Split done.

"IUPAC defines the limit of nuclear existence at a half-life of 10⁻¹⁴ seconds" -- we haven't had this acronym so far, it's better to simply spell it out;

Done.

"Heiner Meldner" -- I was about to suggest the usual nationality-profession introduction, but then I saw that the name had already been introduced. I think it would be better to refer to the man simply by his last name then;

Done.

"Amnon Marinov" -- here, the rule is to be applied;

Done.

"A 2018 study" -- it would be great to attribute that study to someone.

Now attributed to both the institution and first author.

There's no major issue that I was able to find.--R8R (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

All fixed, with slight modifications and adjustments for flow. ComplexRational (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

The sources appear to be comprehensive and scholarly, meeting the FA criteria for quality/reliability. All links to sources are working, and formats appear consistent and MoS-compliant. The one issue I have is with problems of verification; in a number of cases, where the source document is quite lengthy, page numbers are either not given, are too wide to be useful, or in the odd case, incomprehensible. Here are a few examples:

Ref 1: No p. refs given – the source has 30 pages
Ref 2: The page range as presented is hard to decipher. I take it to mean "1250013-1 – 1250013-20", a 20-page range.
Ref 17: page given as 03002, which is not a page number in this multi-page document
Ref 18: No p. ref given – source has 40 pages

That's as far as I checked, but I imagine there are further examples – in fact, I jumped ahead and looked up the "Perspectives" document from the 2016 NUSTAR meeting (Ref 75). The document is 48 pages long, no p. refs provided. Specific page references, or short p. ranges, are essential for verification purposes.

I rechecked the references and adjusted the page ranges for as many as I could find, including all five examples above.

However, some are not as easy to verify because the page numbers in the open-access version (e.g. arXiv) may not be identical to the journal publication. I hope this is sufficient (those will also most likely be the pages checked by those interested in verifying). ComplexRational (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Do you have any further comments or questions pertaining to sources? After these initial comments, I rechecked and made small corrections to as many refs as I could find; I now await additional feedback. ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources now fine-no further issues. Good work. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. ComplexRational (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Cantor's first set theory article[edit]

FAC This article is about Cantor's first article on infinite sets, which contains his discovery of two kinds of infinite sets: countable sets and uncountable sets. The members of a countable set can be written as a sequence—for example, the fractions between 0 and 1 can be written as the sequence 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4, … . Cantor proves that the members of many sets of real numbers are uncountable—for example, the real numbers between 0 and 1 cannot be written as a sequence. Cantor's "revolutionary discovery" (see article lead for source) of uncountable sets together with the abundant use of infinite sets in modern mathematics justify a comprehensive Wikipedia article about his article. Also, it would be nice to have another featured article on mathematics: of the nearly 6,000 featured articles, only 18 (about 0.3%) are on mathematics.

This article is about Cantor's first article on infinite sets, which contains his discovery of two kinds of infinite sets: countable sets and uncountable sets. A set is countable if its members can be written as a sequence—for example, the set of fractions between 0 and 1 is countable since its members can be written as the sequence 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4, … . A set is uncountable if its members cannot be written as a sequence—for example, the set of real numbers between 0 and 1 is uncountable. Cantor's "revolutionary discovery" (see article lead for source) of uncountable sets together with the later abundant use of infinite sets in mathematics justify a comprehensive Wikipedia article about his article. Also, it would be nice to have another featured article on mathematics since from the nearly 6,000 featured articles, only 18 (about 0.3%) are on mathematics.

This Wikipedia article passed its Good Article review in August 2018 and its DYK review in December 2018. Since this is my first time nominating an article, I contacted a FAC mentor, Iry-Hor, whose excellent advice led to further improvements. I look forward to more advice that will hopefully lead to a featured article.

Washington State Route 504[edit]

Nominator(s): Sounder Bruce 06:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the highway that leads up to Mount St. Helens, which famously erupted on May 18, 1980, in spectacular fashion. Most of the road was destroyed by the lahar deposits, which tumbled down the Toutle River Valley at extreme speeds. Even today, almost 40 years later, the new highway snakes its way through a landscape that still has scars from the eruption. This article was promoted to GA last year and hasn't changed significantly, but I believe it is up to the standard I set with my previous road FAs. Sounder Bruce 06:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Island of stability[edit]

Nominator(s): ComplexRational (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the theoretical island of stability, a hypothetical set of superheavy nuclides (isotopes of the heaviest known chemical elements) that may be longer-lived than those currently known. This concept has guided research in the field of nuclear physics for decades, with various calculations corroborating predictions and numerous experiments designed to seek these nuclides. Although the island itself has not yet been discovered, experimental evidence strongly suggests its existence and that we are approaching the "shores".

After almost a year of work, a GAN in April passed by HaEr48, and a peer review in July-November by R8R (who contributed to the featured articles dubnium and tennessine, which partly lie within the same scope), I feel that this article is ready to be considered for featured status. Based on the reviews, I believe that it is complete and understandable despite the technical subject. All feedback necessary to complete the home stretch is welcome, so thank you in advance. Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Support by R8R[edit]

I first encountered the article at the peer review. At first glance, I liked the article very much and it only improved since then. I gave many comments during the review at PR and now that they are resolved, I believe the article is in a very good shape. ~~I'll be happy to support its promotion but I'd like to give the article one last glance before then.--R8R (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)~~ My comments have been addressed, I am happy to support.--R8R (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Note a is better off split into two, with the "other observationally stable nuclides can be unstable" part better placed in a separate note after "252 nuclides are observed to be stable (having never been observed to decay)";

Split done.

"IUPAC defines the limit of nuclear existence at a half-life of 10⁻¹⁴ seconds" -- we haven't had this acronym so far, it's better to simply spell it out;

Done.

"Heiner Meldner" -- I was about to suggest the usual nationality-profession introduction, but then I saw that the name had already been introduced. I think it would be better to refer to the man simply by his last name then;

Done.

"Amnon Marinov" -- here, the rule is to be applied;

Done.

"A 2018 study" -- it would be great to attribute that study to someone.

Now attributed to both the institution and first author.

There's no major issue that I was able to find.--R8R (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

All fixed, with slight modifications and adjustments for flow. ComplexRational (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

The sources appear to be comprehensive and scholarly, meeting the FA criteria for quality/reliability. All links to sources are working, and formats appear consistent and MoS-compliant. The one issue I have is with problems of verification; in a number of cases, where the source document is quite lengthy, page numbers are either not given, are too wide to be useful, or in the odd case, incomprehensible. Here are a few examples:

Ref 1: No p. refs given – the source has 30 pages
Ref 2: The page range as presented is hard to decipher. I take it to mean "1250013-1 – 1250013-20", a 20-page range.
Ref 17: page given as 03002, which is not a page number in this multi-page document
Ref 18: No p. ref given – source has 40 pages

That's as far as I checked, but I imagine there are further examples – in fact, I jumped ahead and looked up the "Perspectives" document from the 2016 NUSTAR meeting (Ref 75). The document is 48 pages long, no p. refs provided. Specific page references, or short p. ranges, are essential for verification purposes.

I rechecked the references and adjusted the page ranges for as many as I could find, including all five examples above.

However, some are not as easy to verify because the page numbers in the open-access version (e.g. arXiv) may not be identical to the journal publication. I hope this is sufficient (those will also most likely be the pages checked by those interested in verifying). ComplexRational (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Do you have any further comments or questions pertaining to sources? After these initial comments, I rechecked and made small corrections to as many refs as I could find; I now await additional feedback. ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources now fine-no further issues. Good work. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. ComplexRational (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)