Talk:Carl Friedrich Gauss

Ambiguous Referencing

Referencing to Gauss' writings is a special problem. For example this paper:

• 1841: "Intensitas vis magneticae terrestris ad mensuram absolutam revocata". Commentationes Societatis Regiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Recentiores. 8: 3–44. Original (from 1832)

He wrote this in 1832, and presented it to the Royal Academy at its session on 15 December 1832, see the subtitle of the publication Commentatio auctore Carolo Friderica Gauss in concessu Societatis MDCCCXXXII Dec. XV recitata This first publication is part of the series with full title Commentationes Societatis Regiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Recentiores Volumen VIII ad a. MDCCCXXXII - XXXVII; it's edited Gottingae MDCCCXLI. So we have a text of 1832, published in 1841 in the issue of a series for the years 1832–1837.

If we refer to it in the text in the form ...Gauss (18xy), what could "xy" be: Gauss (1832), Gauss (1832-1837), (Gauss 1837), or Gauss (1841)? When I prepared the text, I have seen a certain text with different years in the different sources several times. This may cause confusion.

In the "Selected Writings" chapter I give at first the year of editorial publication, with a link to the digitalized Collected Works. We usually refer to the written text, and it is often necessary to make clear, when his contemporaries could get notice of it. But if we write: "Gauss developed his ideas on magnetism in 18xy", we should take the earliest year for xy, otherwise it were wrong. So, when necessary, I gave the early year in brackets at the of the source, and, in addition, a link to the original per, too, so anyone can check the dates. Dioskorides (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Carl Friedrich Gauss/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Dioskorides (talk · contribs) 14:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Broc (talk · contribs) 13:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks a lot for the work on the page. I'm starting a GA review and will post updates below. Broc (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Broc: Many thanks to you for starting the review (Sorry for my late answer, the last days I had a short stay in Romania without Wikipedia :) ) I know this work will be a considerable challenge. And we should remember, it's not "my" text, it's the community's text, following the Wikipedia regulations. I am responsible for about 70% of the text, a colleague from Israel contributed most of the mathematical parts (I will inform him about the review).

Thanks for your clear list of items at the bottom. There I find some of the weak points of the texts that I had already seen, but I tried to avoid too many changes on the previous authors' work, written before I started my work. I am quite confident that we can solve the weak points. And I think the requested citations can mostly be found easily. I estimate I will need about one week.

And thanks for the corrections you have already made. --Dioskorides (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dioskorides I know I wrote "you" in many of my comments, please read that "you" as "the editor who wrote this sentence" ;)

Do not hurry with the changes; I will be on vacation from 8 to 23 June, will likely continue the review upon my return, if that's ok for you. This should give you plenty of time to address the open issues.

Thanks a lot for the great work on the article, I believe it does not miss much to become a GA. Broc (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I will do my very best. I think it will be the clearest handling to put my answers directly under your questions resp. remarks, if you agree. --Dioskorides (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dioskorides I see you are still working on some of the suggested changes. Meanwhile, I started pruning the article as it might be WP:TOOBIG at 11.200 words, and there is a lot of redundant prose. I would suggest to keep this in mind when editing. Broc (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Broc. I hope you had good holidays. This was a precision landing, my 14:58 edit should be definitely the last one. It is clear, that it's a very long article. And if there are questions to clarify, the article grows even longer. I have tried to clear all the items you wrote below. The citation tags are still in the text, so you can easily see whether the citation is sufficient now.

I know this article challenges the reader, but I think no reader will read the whole amount of text at one time. And we have the table of contents. But it's clear, this article touches the limits, I have noticed it when editing, it becomes more and more difficult. I don't know the total of words, and what number of words is accepted. I am more accustumed to look at the number of Bytes, and 200 KBytes should be a reasonable limit. But we should not forget, that we have many lists incl. the huge citation list. I think I have done what I can do. But if you have other questions or comments, please let me know. --Dioskorides (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I have just changed the first section of "Astronomy" with a new version which is not so long-winded; there is a main article on that stuff with all details. --Dioskorides (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Do we really need the book title gallery at the end of the "Selected writings"? When I began my work, I found five titles, and added the last one, but I think they are superfluous, not even decorative, and don't give any further information. --Dioskorides (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Review summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   some unclear sentences as mentioned below, but generally good

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   WP:PUFFERY in many sections.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   all good

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   26 citation needed and 6 failed verification

   C. It contains no original research:

   generally ok but pointed out one passage in the comments below

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   generally yes, but a couple captions should be improved, and some images are in unrelated sections

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   putting on hold for now, if issues are fixed, it can be promoted. Broc (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead section

• You mention Gauss is referred to as "Prince of Mathematics". However, this is never mentioned in the article.

It is hidden in "Honours and awards" in the Latin text of the medal. This is obviously the origin of the epitheton that nearly all Gauss biographers mention in their texts. I have added an English translation. --Dioskorides (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Content/prose review

• Section "professor in Göttingen": the section title mentions he got a professorship in Göttingen but this is nowhere mentioned in the prose.

Gauss got the call for Göttingen in Summer 1807, when he still lived in Brunswick without job and payment, so I put it to the subchapter "Private scholar". But you are right: from the reader's view this information is missing in the subchapter "Professor in Göttingen." I will change it in this way. --Dioskorides (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Done. --Dioskorides (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• In the same section, it is also unclear what happens to him after becoming director of the observatory: does he stay in this role until he dies?

Added. --Dioskorides (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• "German academic mathematics were in a poor condition": do you mean that mathematics was in a poor condition, or that mathematicians were in a poor condition? either way, the sentence is not correct as it is.
• The same sentence as above requires an inline reference, or could be rewritten to show that this was only Gauss' point of view.
• "His interest in practical applicability, [...] qualified Gauss [...] as a typical applied mathematician of the century of enlightenment. [...] mathematics without defined links to practical purposes, and thus showed himself as a pioneer of what was later called "pure mathematics"." This part seems a bit WP:OR, I read the introduction of Klein, p. 5-6, as well as Dunnington, p. 217 and couldn't find anything in this sense. Suggestion: remove or cite appropriately.

To these three items: I am realizing this section as a weak point, too. Referencing is not easy if several sources are used in one section. I have now substituted the text with a complete new one, very close to the wording in the two references: Klein (1894) and Schubring, a prolific historian of mathematics. I hope it's better now. I think this introduction to the chapter is necessary, because many readers are not familiar with history of German university of the 19th century. It's necessary to understand some features of Gauss's career. --Dioskorides (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• "His personal diary indicates that several mathematical discoveries may be found by him years or decades before contemporaries firstly published on them." the verb tenses do not match (may have been found), one cannot "find" a "discovery" imho, and it's unclear who "contemporaries" are. Our contemporaries or his? "first published them" instead of "firstly published on them".

This sentence is not necessary, I have simply deleted it. --Dioskorides (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• "but the "Collected Works" contain a considerable literary estate, too." What does this mean? The "Collected Works" have not been mentioned until now. What are they?

Done. --Dioskorides (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph starting with "Though Gauss is seen": lots of WP:PUFFERY scattered throughout. Same as for the paragraph starting with "In his inaugural lecture".

I hope it's better now. --Dioskorides (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• You mention "Gauss did not write any textbooks" but two paragraphs above you mentioned "short glosses in his own textbooks". Which one is wrong?

None of them, both statements are correct. He did not write any introductory textbook for students, so "his own textbooks" must have been written by other persons. Even the student Gauss needed textbooks. --Dioskorides (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• MOS:DASH, you are using a mix of en and em dash throughout the article. Please choose one style.
• "The years since 1820 were evaluated as a": evaluated by whom? Worth specifying in the prose, especially if you're adding a direct quote afterwards.

I have rewritten this sentence. --Dioskorides (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• I think the paragraphs starting with "in his inaugural lecture" are strictly biographical, and maybe should be moved to the section "Professor in Göttingen" instead of the "Personality" section.

Of course, you're right. In the course of time, a lot of biographical stuff was introduced into the "Personality", that would be better put to the biographical facts in the first part. There are still some other sections both of "scholar" and "private man" which can be removed there, and I will try to do so, so that "Personality" only gives aspects of personality stricto sensu. --Dioskorides (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Just done. --Dioskorides (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• "like an Olympian sitting enthroned on the summit of science". If you put a direct quote, you should mention who said it.

It is said by the author, who is given in the reference at the end of this sentence. The whole sentence in Wußing's book reads (in my translation): "The aging Gauss was regarded as unapproachable, reserved, inaccessible, like an Olympian sitting enthroned on the summit of science, inaccessible for common mortals." With these words, with these four adjectives (for which I can find only three English translations), Wußing characterizes the common view on Gauss in a slightly exaggerated style. Presumably to contrast with the follwing text, where he describes the other sides of the private Gauss. --Dioskorides (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Section "the private man": should the son be referred to as "Eugene" throughout the page, as this is the name he used for most of hist life?

Please, see the "Source review" below. --Dioskorides (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• "to be true quite literally": tautology. I don't think "quite literally" adds anything to the sentence.

I deleted "to be true". He did not mention any doubts on the truth of the Christian religion, but he could not believe as a child, what means that he did not accept all stories of the Bible as historical facts. --Dioskorides (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Gauss's" or "Gauss'"? I would prefer the second one, but the use is mixed throughout the article. Please choose one and stick to it.

I prefer the second one, too. So I have standardized the genitiv in this way, but I cannot change the mode of writing in reference texts. --Dioskorides (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Now, a very busy user has changed all the "Gauss'" to "Gauss's". So, what to do? Is this really pronounceable, does it sound like [ˈɡaʊses] or like [ˈɡaʊs] with a very long [s]? --Dioskorides (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• arc measurement: perhaps worth mentioning what it is. I added a wikilink, but a small explanation would perhaps be helpful to the reader.

I have added some short explanation. --Dioskorides (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• WP:PUFFERY in section "theory of errors"

I hope it's better now. --Dioskorides (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• One key differential geometric conception: "key" according to whom? did not escape his mind sounds like WP:PUFFERY. More importantly and it is very likely that: again, according to whom?
• His earliest "serious" encounter with topological notions who defines it as "serious"? why is it in quotes?

I have deleted the "serious" and rewritten the text a little bit. --Dioskorides (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• he helped spread the new mathematical ideas by demonstrating how they illuminate and shorten the solution of small mathematical problems what does this mean? Which new mathematical ideas? What does it mean that an idea illuminates or shortens a solution? This introductory paragraph is so generic I would rather remove it.
• he was a vivid spirit in applying complex numbers this sounds like WP:PUFFERY. How about he applied complex numbers
• discovered a surprising result about the computation of area of pentagons which result? why not explain it in a sentence? avoid "surprising".

These three items concern the chapter "Minor mathematical accomplishments". I have rewritten the text without puffery (I hope so), and less examples. --Dioskorides (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• section geomagnetism: Gauss' "obvious" interest needs to be rephrased or referenced.
• the part regarding the Magnetical Association is unclear at best. What is meant by "Humboldt was helpful to organize" and what do the British dominions have to do with the observatories? You mention that "this" (unclear what, the letter?) led to a global program called Magnetical crusade but you don't say what it was about. However, you mention a very specific aspect when you say The dates, times, and intervals of observations were determined in advance – but which observations are you referring to?

I hope I could clarify both items with my rewriting. I think this article is not the right place to explain many details of the magnetic crusade or Gauss' Magnetic Association, this would need a complete article. The cited publications give much more of information. --Dioskorides (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Finally 61 stations participated in this global program. "Finally" as in "after a long time" or as introduction of the last point of the paragraph?

"Finally" is deleted. --Dioskorides (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• magnetic Force why the capital letter?

I have corrected. --Dioskorides (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Gauss' first and last business in mechanics concerned the earth's rotation. that "first and last" needs a source, or you can just remove it.

I have rewritten. The work of 1802 in mechanics as the first one is obvious. --Dioskorides (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Anectodes" section: are you sure this is the best way to present it? (the answer can be yes!) See WP:TRIVIA.

WP:TRIVIA encourages the authors to integrate the trivia into the text. Now, when I started my work on 4 March 2023 (please cf. the page history), I already found the chapter "Anecdotes", but additionally some of them integrated in the text. If you look at WP in other languages (even if you don't be able to understand), you will see easily that nearly all Wikipedias integrate the counting anecdote or more in the text, whereas the scientific stuff is often incomplete. The anecdotes seem to be very important, more important — with great distance — than the scientific works and results of Gauss.

I want to keep a clear distance between biographical facts and scientific results on the one side, and the telled stories on the other side. The stories might be true or not, or have a true core with novelistic arabesques; you see it when an anecdote exists in different variants.

The biography does not need these anecdotes, and WP:TRIVIA says "Any speculative or factually incorrect entries should be removed, ..." But if we delete them, I am sure someone will restitute them after a short time anywhere into the text. I don't like "Trivia", "Anecdotes" is a more precis title. --Dioskorides (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources review

• Added {{cn}} as I couldn't verify in the source Eberhard August Wilhelm von Zimmermann was his teacher

I have added a reference. --Dioskorides (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Added {{cn}} as this event is not mentioned in the sources used or would benefit from an inline reference "Gauss depicted him in a drawing showing a lecture scene where he produced errors in a simple calculation."

I have added a reference. --Dioskorides (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• The award of the doctorate in absentia might require an inline reference, tagged as {{cn}}

I have added a reference. --Dioskorides (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Failed verification tag: prince-primate Dalberg gave him 1000 francs, but who paid his war contributions was Laplace (or at least so the source says). This part needs to be rewritten.

Dunnington writes about the payment (page 87): "One day he received a letter from Olbers with this sum, but felt he should not accept it and sent the money back to Bremen. Shortly afterward came a letter from Laplace stating that he had paid in the two thousand francs direct at Paris. Later Gauss paid back the French mathematician, with interest on the money, from his own funds. From Frankfurt on the Main he received an anonymous gift of a thousand florins, which in later years he learned was a gift of the prince primate, Baron Karl Theodor Anton Maria von Dalberg (1744–1817), grand duke of Frankfurt. This sum he kept as coming from a public purse, a tribute to his work rather than for personal friendship." So Dunnington. I shortened this by omitting Olbers and Laplace, they got their money back. The only question is whether the Dalberg donation covered actually the whole sum requested for contributions, but that would require an original research. I think it was the total sum or at least most of it. --Dioskorides (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Failed verification tag on the children names: I found no evidence of Wilhelm being called William, and Eugene's birth name is not Eugen. I also have doubts on who was nicknamed Minna: the second wife or the daughter?

I see, one of the most difficult Wikipedia problems is pursuing us, too: the "correct names". There has already been a great discussion on the correct writing of Gauss/Gauß (see Talk pages). Now the Christian names.

In general, we have to distinguish a. the Christian names of the birth registration, b. the usual naming with only one or two of them, c. the calling with pet names, d. other adopted names by reason of emigration or adoption of pseudonyms, e. spelling variants of these names. Now: What is a "correct" or "incorrect" name? In my opinion a name is incorrect, if it has never been used or a variant is given that has never been written. But with this, we have a considerable variety of "correct" names.

Now to the Gauss children. Dunnington gives the full collection of their Christian names on page 102. All the last three children have four first names, and Dunnington gives their common used names Therese, Wilhelm, and Eugene. I don't know why he wrote Eugene instead of Eugen; of course, these names were used with German pronounciation. I presume that Dunnington was not aware of the very different pronounciation of Eugene and Eugen, and the orthographical similarity is much greater than between Wilhelm and William, so he didn't take care of it, so this is a simple mistake of Dunnington (and of Cajory, who gives Theresa as another variant). But when both sons had emigrated to the U.S., they used the English version Eugene and William of their first names. Look here or here, obviously both of them were named Eugene and William in the U.S.

In Germany, the calling name "Eugen" was used as the short and common variant of the Greek-Latin "Eugenius", given to him with the birth registration, but the Latin suffix -us (or: -ius) is usually omitted in German common use. Please confer a letter from C.F.Gauss to his son (9 August 1846) as "Lieber Eugen" (= Dear Eugen), but addressed to "Mr. Eugene Gauss": [1]

"Wilhelm" was the only common name for the last son, you can find in German literature and in the letters of his siblings. Staying in Germany, he signed letters to his father with "Wilhelm Gauß" (1 June 1830) [2], "C.W. Gauß" (12 Sept. 1831) [3], and "CWGauß" (23 June 1832) [4]. In letters to his mother he signed "Wilhelm Gauß" (22 June 1830) [5], and to his grandmother "W. Gauß" (27 August 1830) [6]. Staying in America, he used "Charles William Gauss" (10 July 1838) [7], "Charles W: Gauss" (13 Jan. 1839) [8], and "Charles W^m Gauss" (19 Nov. 1841) [9]. The inscription of his grave monument shows "Charles W. Gauss". This may indicate that his American calling name was rather Charles than William, but I don't have any scientific publication for it.

"Wilhelmine" was a common 19th-century girl's name, as nickname mostly "Minna". Unfortunately both Wilhelmine Gauss and her stepmother had the same first name and used the same nickname (e.g. in their letters), so "Minna Gauss" is ambiguous. Johanna Gauss' nickname was "Hanchen", not mentioned in the text. I propose, we leave all nicknames from the text.

So once more: what are the "correct" names? I don't no, and I think, Dunnigton and Cajori had the same problem. They had to decide, and we have to decide what may be the best solution. The actual problem is that the Gauss family members did not use their names according to the Wikipedia regulations.

Even Gauss' name causes problems, look at his first English orbituary: [10]; William already used "Charles Frederick Gauss" in his letter from 13 Jan. 1839. You can find another English translation of "Carl Friedrich Gauss" here: [11]; it is not a misprint, we find this variant three times in the text. These are all reliable sources according to the Wikipedia regulations, but which publication is actually correct: Dunnington, Cajori, the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astonomical Society, or The American Mathematical Monthly? I think, the calling name for Gauss used in his family is a more interesting information: Carl or Friedrich? Both his wives addressed him Carl: here and here, but unfortunately I have no publication where this is stated.

If you have a better solution for this problem than mine, please tell me, I will change it soon. --Dioskorides (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Citation needed on the dislike of teaching by Gauss. Especially if you write "it was well known", a reference is needed.

Now with reference; I have shortened the text. --Dioskorides (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Citation needed: Dunnington, p. 94-95 only mentions his grief after the wife death but does not mention he never fully recovered from the depression.

I have deleted this speculative diagnosis, and not even Dunnington mentioned a "depression". The grief after the wife's death is a quite normal behaviour, and it would be curious if he had not been sad for a long time. --Dioskorides (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Disquisitiones Arithmeticae. You write The entries in Gauss' Mathematical diary indicate that he was busy with the subject of number theory at least since 1796., but Bachmann, used as source, starts his introduction as In der Vorrede zu seinem Werke setzt Gauss den Beginn seiner Beschäftigung mit dessen Gegenstände in den Anfang des Jahres 1795. [...] Schon vorher hat Gauss sich viel mit rechnerischen Versuchen beschäftigt [...] bereits [...] als 15 jähriger [...] mit einer der der verzwicktesten Aufgaben der Zahlentheorie, der Frequenz der Primzahlen. From the source it seems he was dealing with number theory since much earlier.

My sentence is not wrong, because the entries in the diaries start not until 1796. "At least", because he had begun earlier. The question is, what we mean with "busy with the subject of number theory": the mere collecting of data (which had certainly begun some years earlier), or the scientific evaluation of such data. The latter begun in 1795, as Gauss had told in the preface: "...me, quum primum initio a. 1795 ... explicavi," and Bachmann described this, too. I think, we can trust Gauss, like Bachmann trusted him. I have rewritten the txt with regard to Gauss own dating. --Dioskorides (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• A detailed study of previous researches showed him that some of his findings had been already done by other scholars. a detailed study by whom? please add reference

I have rewritten the text. --Dioskorides (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Spot check of refs 114, 115 (on the eight unpublished chapter of the Disquisitiones): ok Y
• Spot check of ref 130 (Ranjan 2021): ok. ISBN and volume number were missing. Y
• Having chosen not to publish these results... needs an inline reference. Tagged with {{cn}}

I have shortened the text at this place. --Dioskorides (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Danish prize with essay on conformal mappings needs reference, tagged accordingly

I have added a reference. --Dioskorides (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Spot check of ref 140 (Monna 1975): ok. Please fix CS1 error in {{cite book}}

Done. --Dioskorides (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Spot check of ref 146 (Cooley Tukey 1965) and 148: all good Y
• Spot check of ref 150 (Olesko 2005): ok Y
• Spot check of ref 162 (Hill 1882): ok Y
• One {{cn}}, one {{failed verification}} in the "theory of errors" section
• One {{failed verification}} in the "arc measurement" section

I have given precis reference. Gauss let two signal towers built on the Hoher Hagen and the Hils. On the referenced pages, A. Galle mentions the term "Durchhau" several times, what means a cutting of trees in a certain direction. --Dioskorides (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Spot check of ref 210 (Epple 1998): ok Y
• Spot check of ref 229 (Reich 2011) and 230: ok Y
• citation needed on the Magnetical Society

I have added a reference. --Dioskorides (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• One {{cn}} in section "Optics"

I have added a reference. --Dioskorides (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Section "honours and awards": many awards are missing an inline reference, and some references do not verify the statements! This section needs major sourcing improvements

Dunnington gives a large list of honours and awards on pages 355 ff. I have put the references morely precisely. I am accustomed from the German Wikipedia that a reference at the end of a section covers the whole section. Of course, it is possible to put the Dunnington reference to each of the academies and the other awards, I will do so it if requested. The weblinks to the institutions are not really necessary, but I think they are useful, but some of the institutions give no informations of their former members. By the way, from the Dunnington list I only mentioned those institutions with a lemma in en:WP, and I omitted the other ones. --Dioskorides (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Good point, I did not see the ref to Dunnington pp 351-355. One mention at the end of the paragraph is probably sufficient. Broc (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Images

• German stamp commemorating Gauss' 200th anniversary: the complex plane why in that section and what does the complex plane have to do with Gauss? the caption should explain it
• Gauss' seal why is it interesting? how is it related to the paragraph?

I have enlarged the captions and put both the stamp and the seal right to the suitable text: the stamp to the first chapter of maths, where the complex numbers are mentioned, and the seal to the subsection, where the seal is mentioned. --Dioskorides (talk) 09:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Carl Friedrich Gauss 1803 by Johann Christian August Schwartz why is this portrait in the "Astronomy" section? Explain the relation in the caption or move/remove the image
• Lithography by Siegfried Bendixen (1828) how is this related to non-Euclidean geometry?
• Gauss bust by Heinrich Hesemann (1855) why is this in the "minor mathematical accomplishments" section?

The portraits are decoration, you can put them anywhere, but the text shouldn't be overcrowded with images in any section. I put the Schwartz portrait of 1803 at the beginning of the astronomy section where his research of the first 19th century decade is described. The Bendixen portrait of 1828 seems to be suitable for the non-Euclidean geometry, he probably did in the years thereafter. The posthumous bust may be placed anywhere, please remove if you think there will be a better place. I thought it fits to the Minor Research Gauss did over his whole scientific life. --Dioskorides (talk) 09:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dioskorides images should not be used as "decoration", rather they are a support to the text. The caption should explain how the image is linked to the section, and attract the reader's attention to the paragraph. See WP:CAPTION and MOS:SECTIONLOC. A good example to take inspiration from would be the FA biography of Niels Bohr. Broc (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree to your judgement of the Bohr biography, unfortunately we don't have such instructive photos of Gauss. I have now placed all images to the right border (but I don't know whether the three images of arc measurement fit closely to the text on all screens), except the Schwartz portrait and the Hesemann bust because of Gauss' posture.

Please notice the first sentence of the second section of the lead in WP:CAPTIONS: Not every image needs a caption; some are simply decorative. All portraits (incl. the infobox portrait) are decorative and superfluous for understanding the text. They only demonstrate the ageing process, nothing else. I don't need them, if you prefer them to be deleted, I will do it. (But I fear someone will replace them soon.) I have the idea that the reader of a biography wishes to see the person he reads about. --Dioskorides (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The "Order of King George IV" for the triagulation project, does it need an English translation? --Dioskorides (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Re-review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I passed it through a grammar check and found a lot of issues. I fixed some of them, but it generally needs some improvement. There is a lot of redundant prose. The chapter "Non-Euclidean geometries" is especially hard to understand.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   WP:PUFFERY issues solved

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   all good

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   3 citation needed, 1 unreliable source, 1 failed verification

   C. It contains no original research:

   issues with possible WP:OR now fixed

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   At 11,000 words, it is a very long articles. Many sections go into unnecessary detail and could be trimmed or WP:SPLIT

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   all good now

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   leaving on hold for now, if issues are fixed, it can be promoted. Broc (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I see significant improvement. There are still a few {{citation needed}} left and one unreliable source that need to be fixed. The main blocking point from my point of view is in the prose, which is at time difficult to understand or redundant. One example:

In later years, Gauss held the emerging field of topology in very high esteem and expected great future developments for it, but since there is so few written, but unpublished material by Gauss on these matters, his influence was made mainly through occasional remarks and oral communications to his colleagues and students Mobius, Listing, and Riemann.

could be rewritten, without losing information, as

Gauss' influence in later years to the emerging field of topology, which he held in high esteem, was through occasional remarks and oral communications to Mobius, Listing, and Riemann.

The word count is above 11,000 but could be significantly reduced by simplifying the prose and removing unnecessary details.

@Dioskorides: I can leave the review on hold if you want to work on these items. Best, Broc (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

_________

Another User has already substituted the text in that way you have proposed.

It might be a problem that both main authors User:Dioskorides and User:עשו are not native speakers of English language, so there might be stylistic mistakes. This article has an average daily number of page views of more than 1200. I rely upon this community of interested readers, possibly most well acquainted with English language, that they will correct the mistakes.

You wrote: "The chapter "Non-Euclidean geometries" is especially hard to understand." Since your re-review I was busy with shortening and clarifying the text at various chapters. I think there is a certain reason for obscure wording: we have to follow the sources, and a complex and obscure wording in WP only reflects the complex and obscure wording of the sources. I don't know why they have written in this way, but this sometimes overdetailed, often enthousiatic and - horribile est dictu - not comprehensible argumentation gives the pattern for a similar style of the WP text.

My text is based on Bühler (1981) as "new" author and Klein (1979 [1926]) as the one of the first authors who dealt with that matter. Klein tells the facts: 1. Gauss thought about the limits of Euclidean geometry and alternatives in some notices, 2. Gauss did not publish on it, 3. Gauss gave some hints in letters to colleagues, 4. Gauss asked them for strongest secrecy. 5. Sartorius (1856) was the first one who told about Gauss's thought about the basics of geometry, 6. The unpublished notices and the letters were published in Collected Works, Vol. 8 (1900). I put all these facts except no. 4 into the text.

Klein created a great biographical problem with only one sentence/statement/judgement (p. 57, in my translation): "Apart from this priority, Gauss has the greatest merit to the non-Euclidean geometry by the weight of his authority by which he helped this immediately strongly attacked creation of mind to common attention and finally to victory". This enthousiastic judgement has been taken, with other wording, by a lot of authors like a proved fact. I don't write in this way, following Bühler, who argues in a more distant way. Why? Take the table of contents of vol. 8 of the Collected Works, there you find "Grundlagen der Geometrie" on pp. 159–270. But there are only eight (!) numbers with together about thirty (!) pages with Gauss's notices on geometry, mostly less of any explanations, far from being something like a publication text or only a preprint; it is a collection of ideas, not more, and the eight parts are partly composed of some disseminated material found in the Nachlaß by the editors. And the few statements in the letters are often nebulous and obscure. There we can read fragments out of 17 letters to six correspondents, but mostly no (!) mathematicians, they did not made use of the Gauss informations, they all were not busy with geometry, except the private scholar Taurinus, whom Gauss wrote a comprehensible outline of his ideas of a non-Euclidean geometry in 1824. But Gauss forbed (!) Taurinus to make any use of this stuff or to cite him. So I don't see how Gauss put "the weight of his authority" on it. Gauss did not only avoid influence by publication, he definitely cared for not being brought in connection personally to this subject. One might say, he hid his ideas (ideas, because one can't name them "results"). And I can't see how Gauss could give his "authority" before publication of vol. 8 in 1900. And I would like to know, which of Gauss's ideas on this subject were new in the year 1900? What has he given to the mathematical community, which was not known until the publication of 1900? If we have a theorem or proof or sth. else fulfilling this criterium, we may add this to the chapter definitely, with source. But we don't need enthousiastic wording without substance. (By the way: Klein opinion of "priority" in the sentence above is the same as Gauss' opinion (as I have decribed in "The scholar"), and far from his contemporaries' or today's opinion.)

I have deleted one sentence which you can read in similar way in Bühler (1981, p. 100).

So I am very interested, what "is especially hard to understand" in the "Non-Euclidean geometries". And you wrote "especially": which other chapters or section are not well to understand? And: "There is a lot of redundant prose.": Where do you find still redundant prose? Please tell me, perhaps I can improve it. Greetings. --Dioskorides (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dioskorides Regarding the section "Non-Euclidean geometries":

• Euclid's parallel axiom perhaps a wikilink to Parallel postulate might help the reader

Done. --Dioskorides (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Gauss himself was only interested in the geometrical aspects of the physical space, but did not care about the philosophical aspects of an enlarged geometry which philosophical aspects? What does "enlarged geometry" mean?

"Enlarged geometry" means the new non-Euclidean geometry with the Euclidean geometry as approximation. This is from Bühler, but I see, this lonely sentence reads somewhat obscure, I have deleted it, it is not necessary. --Dioskorides (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Numerous mathematicians made efforts to prove [the axiom] but an axiom cannot be proven by definition, no? Axiom = assumption.

OK, corrected. --Dioskorides (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• he gave a first short public comment on this matter in a book review on which matter?

On the problem of proving the parallel postulate, but I omitted this short comment. The letter to Taurinus seems to be more important because of its content. --Dioskorides (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Your explanation in bullet points 1-6 above is much easier to understand than the paragraph. Could the sentence Not until Lobachevsky (1829) and Janos Bolyai (1832) had published their ideas of non-Euclidean geometry – for the first time in the history of mathematics – Gauss himself put down his ideas, but avoided any influence to the contemporary scientific discussion, because he did not publish about it. perhaps better rewritten as The first publications on non-Euclidean geometry in the history of mathematics were authored by Nikolai Lobachevsky in 1829 and Janos Bolyai in 1832. At the same time, Gauss wrote his ideas on the topic but did not publish them, thus avoiding influencing the contemporary scientific discussion.? It is usually better to split very long sentences into shorter bits.

Done. --Dioskorides (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the GA nomination: since the sourcing issues are fixed, if this section is improved, the article can be promoted to GA. The relatively minor prose issues throughout the text can be fixed over time as they do not significantly impair the article's readability. Since the start of the nomination, the length of the article has also been significantly reduced to 10,400 words from the starting 12,000. While still rather long, in my opinion the article does not require WP:SPLIT. Broc (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

All high-priority open topics have been addressed, accepting the nomination. Thanks @Dioskorides for the large amount of work. Broc (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hey man im josh talk 14:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a geographer determined the surface area of Carl Friedrich Gauss's brain?

• Source: Schweizer, Renate; Wittmann, Axel; Frahm, Jens (2014). "A rare anatomical variation newly identifies the brains of C.F. Gauss and C.H. Fuchs in a collection at the University of Göttingen". Brain. 137 (4): e269. doi:10.1093/brain/awt296. hdl:11858/00-001M-0000-0014-C6F0-6. PMID 24163274.

• Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Dioskorides (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Dioskorides (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC).

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Fantastic work bringing this to GA status! Great choice for a hook! Reywas92^Talk 01:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Disquisiti0nes division

The Disquisitiones are said here to be divided into 'chapters', but in their own article into 'sections'. Could someone familiar with this type of literature kindly reconcile? The original Latin is "sectio". Errantios (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)