This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The book reviews in this article seem excessive. I'm unsold on the need for their inclusion at all, but having upto 11 different reviews for a single work is to much. I don't see the need to have every review for each book, could these be cut back to just the most important two or three per work? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I would rather not have any selection criterion for which ones are "important" and which not. Working that way, in general, seems too likely to lead to gaming on some other articles, by determining importance in a way that excludes negative reviews. Additionally, having a broad number of reviews for some of the books gives an immediate impression of how widely they were read, while the ones with fewer reviews may be more specialized, giving useful information to readers. And the ones with many reviews may be candidates for having separate articles that go into more depth on those books, using those reviews as sources, so it is useful to collect all the reviews where a future editor interesting in writing such an article could find them. Therefore in this matter I would prefer being comprehensive over being selective. Additionally, there are three points in the article that justify having an article on the subject at all. One of them is being named as University Professor (WP:PROF#C5), one is having well-cited research publications (PROF#C1), and the third is having multiple book reviews for multiple books. The fact that the large number of reviews is a key component of notability for this article also argues against trimming them down.
I believe you right that they are notable under C5 and C1, but I still don't think all the reviews are needed. Specifically as per the first note of C1a in regard to MathSciNet, and Zentralblatt. A few of these are just quick description of the work without and additional judgement of it. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
WP:AUTHOR, not WP:PROF#C1a. Also, see my line above about "useful to collect all the reviews where a future editor interesting in writing such an article could find them": A description of a work is useful for an article about the work, as a source for saying something about what is in the work. I do not generally include MR and Zbl listings that are just a copy of the publisher description rather than a signed review. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
