213:
There is one problem that just leaps out when reading this article. It doesn't do a very good job of explaining the history and motivation behind the statement of the conjecture. The first section is "history" and it immediately jumps into work on resolving the conjecture instead of explaining why
193:
OK, these are some points. As far as I understand it, A-class means better than GA. IMO, this article is not "good" (in its natural meaning), nor good (already by lack of citations, but more serious issue is article structure and content) in
Wikispeak. The article, as present at the moment, deserves
221:
Even that might be ok, if it were not written in a somewhat opaque manner to non-mathematicians. It's something that can elegantly be described mostly in words, not in a "here is the equation" followed by "where blah blah denotes this, blah blah denotes that, etc." manner. This is not an isolated
185:
The "Popular
References" section is somehow crappy. I may have too puristic a taste, but if that many popular refs are included, at least somehow the public reception of the conjecture in The Simpsons or whereever has to be explained in the article as well (I personally don't need that, but some
232:
This is an article that is just way below par, in accessibility and readability, of any of the main references available (like the intro to
Edwards' book or Bombieri's official Clay math problem description). Of course, this is true of many articles here, but this is supposed to be an A-class
147:
A real problem is the lack of precise references, indicated by some tags, but many other statements need a ref, too, IMO. For example the footnote 2 is nothing but an extension of the statement made in the lead. Every single phrase in the footnote deserves a reference, or else has to be
165:
Most importantly, I feel the article is written in a way that just collects some facts, but does not give any connection. E.g. the equivalent formulations: why are they equivalent (at least indicating that is necessary), what is their importance
154:"The traditional formulation of the Riemann hypothesis obscures somewhat the true importance of the conjecture." leaves both unclear the traditional formulation (??) and the true importance. Neither of the two are touched in previous paragraphs.
123:
as it is not ready yet. Sadly, I and some others have gotten too busy to improve this page like planned, and the article is in clear need of work. If the comments below are addressed, the article should be worth nominating again.
214:
Riemann would make the conjecture. The next section is about RH and prime distribution, probably the section most laypeople are interested in. The very first mention of the prime numbers is in relation to a somewhat technical
225:
A crucial issue (as already pointed out) is how much we are supposed to explain about the defining of the zeta function. For an article on a very specific major problem like this, I would expect
105:
What problems do you see? The ideal solution would be to fix them and retain the rating. (Note: I am not defending the article; they aren't glaringly obvious at a glance, that's all.)
143:
It was me who came up with this idea, so I also have the duty to give some actionable criticism. Here are some points. A more in-depth analysis would certainly uncover more problems.
157:
What is the specific intention of "The
Riemann hypothesis and primes" compared to "Consequences and eq.formulations..." THe former section contains several equivalent formulations.
21:
178:
The article has to explain why the -2, -4 etc. are called trivial zeroes. This is easily done using the decomposition in the part stemming from the infinite place of
260:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
242:
233:
article. I believe it is nowhere as well-written or thought-out as the other articles that have passed the A class review process. --
203:
133:
114:
99:
17:
182:, and the finite-places Euler factors. So not a big deal, but an example of how little meaningful content the article conveys.
43:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
251:
34:
199:
64:
195:
110:
95:
72:
55:
106:
91:
222:
example. The writing really is not excellent and the lede is completely inadequate.
238:
129:
169:
The definition of zeta(s) is obviously a key asset in the whole story. This
234:
125:
90:
Nominated for review to see if it still warrants A-class rating by:
151:
The organization of the article is far from optimal: e.g.
160:
THe "Weil's criterion, Li's criterion" section is short.
80:
76:
68:
60:
8:
33:The following discussion is preserved as an
189:"Cited References"?? What does that mean?
250:The above discussion is preserved as an
7:
218:result. That's a tad ludicrous.
28:
18:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
1:
243:02:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
204:21:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
134:22:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
115:18:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
100:14:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
277:
139:comment by Jakob.scholbach
257:Please do not modify it.
40:Please do not modify it.
194:B-class rating, IMO.
175:to be in the article.
56:Riemann hypothesis
50:Riemann hypothesis
229:, not nothing.
113:
268:
259:
186:people seem to).
109:
85:
84:
42:
276:
275:
271:
270:
269:
267:
266:
265:
264:
255:
211:
196:Jakob.scholbach
141:
107:Septentrionalis
58:
54:
52:
38:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
274:
272:
263:
262:
246:
210:
209:comment by C S
207:
191:
190:
187:
183:
176:
167:
163:
162:
161:
158:
155:
149:
140:
137:
118:
117:
89:
51:
48:
47:
46:
45:
29:
27:
22:A-class rating
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
273:
261:
258:
253:
248:
247:
245:
244:
240:
236:
230:
228:
223:
219:
217:
208:
206:
205:
201:
197:
188:
184:
181:
177:
174:
173:
168:
164:
159:
156:
153:
152:
150:
146:
145:
144:
138:
136:
135:
131:
127:
122:
116:
112:
108:
104:
103:
102:
101:
97:
93:
88:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
62:
57:
49:
44:
41:
36:
31:
30:
23:
19:
256:
249:
231:
226:
224:
220:
215:
212:
192:
179:
171:
170:
142:
120:
119:
86:
53:
39:
32:
111:PMAnderson
227:something
148:scrapped.
20: |
252:archive
69:history
35:archive
121:Closed
87:review
92:Salix
77:watch
73:links
16:<
239:talk
216:1901
200:talk
166:etc.
130:talk
96:talk
81:logs
65:talk
61:edit
254:.
235:C S
172:has
126:C S
98:):
241:)
202:)
132:)
124:--
79:|
75:|
71:|
67:|
63:|
37:.
237:(
198:(
180:Q
128:(
94:(
83:)
59:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.