Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Compass and straightedge constructions/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:23, 12 April 2007.

I think it is a very good article Tomer T 14:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Virtually no inline citations.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not adequately referenced. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, fails 1c. PhoenixTwo 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, refs. Sumoeagle179 23:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, again, no references. — Wenli 00:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nice article and certainly something that can be built around. However, as mentionned above, citations are needed although a lot of this is pretty much common knowledge in the mathematics community and should be easy to reference from various well-respected textbooks. I do have a few other remarks which will require a bit more work and I'm afraid that this is the kind of subject where nothing short of the perfect article will do.
  • There should be more pictures and explanations about actual doable constructions (or they should at the very least be mentionned). There is an article on Constructible polygon but it's only linked to quite late. In any case, an article about elementary 2D geometry should have a few more pictures. They're actually easy to create and will help the reader tremendously.
  • There's not enough discussion on the history of the problem and simply saying that Wantzel solved the problem is shortchanging a lot of people.
  • Super-short sections should be expanded or merged elsewhere.
  • The doubling the cube summary should mention Archytas's construction and similar things.
  • The bit about origami is barely coherent and it's not clear that it has any relevance anyways.
  • I don't understand the word "neusis".
  • Prose could be tightened here and there. Many short paragraphs kill the flow of the article. Pascal.Tesson 02:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose article is week historically and lacks in details of imposibility proof. Ian Stewart' Galois Theory has a chapter on these imposibility proof using techniques on Galois Theory and he quote Klein's Famous Problems and other Monographs 1962 as a source for many of the extensions. --Salix alba (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - nice article and well written, but somewhat lacking examples. Give us more animated images! 91.65.1.78 08:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.