Wikipedia:Peer review/Edward Wright (mathematician)/archive1

Edward Wright (mathematician)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get this article up to Good Article status, and particularly welcome comments on its general readability. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 01:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrankTobia (talk · contribs)

This is my first peer review, so here goes...

Lead section doesn't have any citations; some may prefer this, but it makes me wary
- Comment: I don't think citations in the lead section are necessary as they would simply repeat citations that occur in the main text. — JackLee, 06:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "probably September or October 1561" in his birth date should be cited or clarified later on
Notes section looks cluttered; consider separating references from citations in the style of Charles Darwin
In the same way, the "Works" section looks cluttered
"It is possible that he followed in the footsteps of his elder brother Thomas" in the first section sounds like speculation or WP:OR
- Comment: It is a speculation, but one made by Wright's biographers and properly referenced. — JackLee, 06:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response: Perhaps make it more explicit, something like: "Parsons and Morris conjecture he followed in his brother's footsteps by attending school in Hardingham"? -FrankTobia (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence in "Navigation and cartography" section sounds like a run-on
On the whole the text reads well, but I suggest getting a review from a better copyeditor than I

Hope that's at least a little helpful. Good luck. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. My comments are above. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]