Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating/Knot theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Knot theory
[edit]Knot theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
Nominated by: Salix alba (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decision: Promoted to A class since there are no objections. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support article has received a major rewite reciently and is in good shape. --Salix alba (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not in a position to comment seriously on the content. I did some trivial copyediting this morning. The only remaining stylistic issue I see is that WP:SCG encourages attributions of historical motivations and eponymous concepts to have more explicit references. The history section in particular could use additional references. If there is a survey paper on the history of knot theory, that would serve well, otherwise some refs to the original papers by a few of the researchers would do. CMummert · talk 12:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so you are saying that there should be refs to the papers by jones, Witten, etc.? Also, I don't really any know any general histories of knot theory (although I know of articles on specific episodes or time periods); besides the Silver reference for the 19th century stuff, I mainly used the stuff that appears in more historically-oriented knot theory books. In general, some comments may not be easily referenced; it's remarkably hard to find that one reference that says "the Jones revolution changed the landscape of knot theory", even if it is undisputed knowledge. --C S (Talk) 00:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that a few references to the original papers by Jones, Witten, etc. would be plenty. To be fair, these references are included in the linked articles described lower down in this article, but this isn't apparent from the lead section. I see there is a graduate texts in mathematics reference - is it suitable as a general reference for these things? CMummert · talk 01:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The GTM by Lickorish is a good reference for some of the basics of the theory of the Jones polynomial, extension to a 3-manifold invariant, and the quantum group invariants (in a single most basic case). But I don't think there is one general reference for all the work inspired by the Fields Medalists mentioned in the article. But I added some of the original reference, with a couple good "further reading" type refs. --C S (Talk) 23:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks fine now. I don't see any other important issues. CMummert · talk 12:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with the same qualification of not actually knowing anything as CMummert. I found two sentences rather confusing:
- "Note that if we believe that the Alexander-Conway polynomial is actually a knot invariant, this shows that the trefoil is not equivalent to the unknot." — This suggests to me that the Alexander-Conway polynomial may actually not be a knot invariant.
- "Conway found a number of omissions but only duplication in the Tait-Little tables" — I don't know what's meant here.
- Weak points which in my opinion should be addressed to make it perfect are: the lead section is rather long, and there is not much discussion about applications. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.