Talk:Algebra: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Greg Woodhouse (We can come up with a better article) |
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{subpages}} | ||
}} | |||
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) | ||
| Line 17: | Line 7: | ||
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. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 21:34, 8 April 2007 (CDT) | 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. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|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. - [[User:Jared Grubb|Jared Grubb]] 14:56, 3 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:48, 24 September 2007
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)