Talk:The Math Myth

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that The Math Myth advocates for American high schools to stop requiring advanced algebra? Source: https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/03/algebra-ii-has-to-go.html
  • Reviewed:

Created by Generalissima (talk). Self-nominated at 08:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Math Myth; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Verified that the article is long enough, that there are no plagiarism concerns through the Copyvios tool and spotchecking, and that the hook is sourced in the article. Cunard (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Great work on this interesting book and article! Cunard (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Sohom Datta (talk · contribs)

This is going be my first review, so picking something that seems (comparitively) short and interesting to me.Sohom (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• comparing the ensuing politicization of math education to Sputnik. It might be great to be explicit about exactly what about Sputnik is being compared to here.
• At the end of the Background section, it transitions somewhat abruptly into the synopsis. Maybe a sentence or two could be added about Hacker's intentions in writing the book (for example, was it a preplanned extension of his piece in NYT or was it a rebutal of the critique he had received etc)
• Are the criticisms still valid today, if not we should use past tense to describe the American education system.
• of the contemporary American education system
  • @Sohom Datta, Oh my gosh, I totally forgot to respond to this! Thank you for initiating the review. Made some corrections as requested. Is there anything else you have noticed with regards to the article? --Generalissima (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Sohom Datta: Apologies for the ping, any other thoughts on the article? Generalissima (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Generalissima I'm doing some stuff offwiki and haven't had time to sit down and look at the article again, will get to it this week :) Sohom (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• The coaching industry, mainly tutoring students in pursuit of mathematics and standardized testing, is heavily decried. of standardized tests in mathematics ?
• coaching might not be a universally understood term
• with Hacker claims that while girls ... with Hacker claiming
• Gender gaps in math education is analyzed are analyzed
• Hacker argues that the intense focus on math as a metric for student success leads to negative consequences in tertiary education and college access for students who are not proficient in advanced mathematics, even when the majority of students go into fields where such knowledge is unnecessary. This is a huge sentence, and is a bit hard to cross-reference and parse :)
• (Optional) Academic coverage of The Math Myth was generally more positive than in mainstream press. Can we add some context as to why (no need to implement this if there are no sources for it)
• Non-free image tagging seems good, the other image is under a free license (though the uploading account is fairly new)
• Sources seem fine

@Generalissima That's it from me, once these changes are made, we should be good to promote. Sorry for the delay, I had gotten caught up offwiki Sohom (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

No worries! Thank you so much for going through the synopsis section. I made some adjustments according to your feedback! :3 Generalissima (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks good :) Sohom (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.