Talk:Algebra: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Jared Grubb
imported>Subpagination Bot
m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details))
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{checklist
{{subpages}}
|                abc = Algebra
|                cat1 = Mathematics
|                cat2 =
|                cat3 =
|          cat_check = n
|              status = 4
|        underlinked = n
|            cleanup = y
|                  by = [[User:Petréa Mitchell|Petréa Mitchell]] 16:53, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
}}


Could someone please look at the external links section to see if the links are appropriate? [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 16:56, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
Could someone please look at the external links section to see if the links are appropriate? [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 16:56, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 10:48, 24 September 2007

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Timelines [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition A branch of mathematics concerning the study of structure, relation and quantity. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Mathematics [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English

Could someone please look at the external links section to see if the links are appropriate? Anthony Argyriou 16:56, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

My opinion, at a first glance: all those external links have to be deleted, because they are either dead links, either kinda self-promotions for websites that do not add any value to the article content. In fact, this is a well-known issue on Wikipedia, where external links are often used by anonymous IPs to do some kind of spam, and I would like this issue to be seriously dealt with on the Citizendium, that is: we must accept only external links that add a significative value to the content of an article. --Sébastien Moulin (talk me) 17:46, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

We can come up with a better article

This article really does need to be rewritten. it does have strong points, but it isn't very well structured, listing a random collection of topics (some, like sigma algebras that don't belong at all), and in some cases it gives some basic definitions, but no context. I recommend statting over with a fresh article. Greg Woodhouse 21:34, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

I've loathed this article on WP. It's such a hodgepodge, but I'm not sure where to start to do another one. I would also love to see this one destroyed and something new written instead. - Jared Grubb 14:56, 3 May 2007 (CDT)