Talk:Summa de arithmetica

Apparent inconsistency? Is the original online?

"Contents" refers to ten chapters, and "External Links" refers to an eleventh part. Can that be resolved?

Can the original text be found online? If so, there should be a link. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I've attempted to clarify the title of the External Link: it's the part on double-entry bookkeeping, which is treatise 11, within section 9 (the section on business and trade), within part 1 (the part on everything that's not geometry). I'll look for a full text online!-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

...and, done! Google Books has the full 1523 edition scanned in; it's now in the external links, along with a newer translation of the bookkeeping section.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Summa de arithmetica/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 08:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

First reading

1. Prose quality, layout, and style

The writing is clear and readable. The lead section appropriately summarizes the content of the article, although I don't think it needs to say twice in the lead that it was written in Italian (once is enough). No issues with words to watch, and the criteria on fiction and list incorporation are not relevant to this article. Overall, no issues here.

One reference to Italian language removed, thanks for pointing that out. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

2. References, verifiability, and copying

I could not access Earwig's copyvio detector, but spot-checking found only other sources copying from this article, not the other way around. All sources look reliable (I was doubtful on first seeing the heavy citation to an auction page on Christie's but it is surprisingly scholarly and detailed) and are consistently formatted.

In the contents section, there is a long paragraph "The book's mathematical content ... medieval discipline of algebra." entirely sourced to the Italian biography of Pacioli. The first half of the paragraph, on the fact that the book draws from the abacus schools and Liber Abaci, and that these traditions involve case studies from practical calculation, is well sourced to that biography. However, I could not find material in the source documenting the second half of the paragraph, claiming that Pacioli integrated mathematical proof into this tradition and in doing so unified medieval and classical mathematics.

Added a citation to the Heeffer source, Pacioli’s Appropriation of Abbacus Algebra: "By reformulating algebraic derivations of abbacus masters as theorems of algebra, and using Euclid’s theorems for algebraic quantities, Pacioli introduces a new style of argumentative reasoning which was absent from abbacus algebra." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Later, in the section on impact and legacy, we read that the Summa was "the most comprehensive mathematical text ever published" and that it became "reference for European mathematicians through the sixteenth century and beyond", again sourced to the Italian Pacioli biography. I was unable to find these claims in the source.

For the first, I've added a citation to Mathematical Treasures — Pacioli's Summa: "This was the most comprehensive mathematical text of the time and one of the earliest printed mathematical works." For the second, I've rewritten the claim and added a citation to The Market for Luca Pacioli's Summa Arithmetica. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

3. Broadness of coverage

The Italian biography of Pacioli mentions a significant priority dispute involving accusations of plagiarism against Pacioli, but perhaps this was over a different book. Nevertheless it also states that large parts of the Summa are also drawn from earlier sources, and cites specific prior published sources for the double-entry book-keeping. All we have of this in our article is the single anodyne line "While the Summa contained little or no original mathematical work by Pacioli", and we state in Wikipedia's voice that the Summa is indeed the first published work on double-entry book-keeping. Probably this issue could use more detail.

Ah, that's a great point. Yes, the article would definitely benefit from a section on the plagiarism accusations. I'll add one over the next few days and then ping you here. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I've added a paragraph on the plagiarism controversy. Your feedback is appreciated! Incidentally, the source I used says that some of the Summa's content was taken from a manuscript by a "Giorgi Charini", but I haven't been able to find any mention of that name outside of this source. Maybe that's a typographical error of some kind? Have you ever heard of a Renaissance mathematician with a name similar to that? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

What appears to be Heeffer's source for this, "Sui plagi matematici di frate Luca Pacioli" by E. Picutti [1] gives the name as "a certain Giorgio Chiarini". I think the wording indicates that Picutti doesn't know much more about him, and neither do I, but at least that spelling looks more likely. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Updated, thank you! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

4. Neutrality

Except for downplaying the plagiarism dispute, I see no issues here.

5. Stability

Except for recent improvements by the nominator (not problematic with respect to this criterion) the article has been very stable. No issues here.

6. Images

The article contains three images, two of which are reproductions of pages from its first and second editions and the third of which is a postage stamp. All are appropriate for the article and have appropriate captions. The two copies of pages are clearly public domain. The postage stamp is a fair-use image, is discussed in the article, and appears to have an appropriate fair-use rationale. So no issues here.

@Bryanrutherford0: Overall, I think with better sourcing of some of the material currently covered by the Italian biography, and with better coverage of the dispute over copied material and the original publication of double-entry bookkeeping, this could easily meet the GA standards. I'm putting the GA nomination on hold to provide time to make these changes. Please let me know when you think it's ready for another round of review. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Second reading

All issues have been addressed satisfactorily, so I'm passing this for GA. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)