Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating/Four color theorem

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 discussion.

Four color theorem

Closed with keep A-class: There seem to be no remaining issues. Perhaps some stuff (as mentioned below) could be profitably pruned, but I found it difficult to do so. In any case, that seems a minor issue that can easily be fixed by anyone who sees it as a problem. --C S (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nomination to remove the A rating. What is/are the complaint(s)? --C S (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I added some refs to a cite tagged section. Redid some of the lede and arrangement of the article (including removing some cruft). Other than that, I see no major issues, except the history section is somewhat messy. I'll clean that up. --C S (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks much better, though I would prefer not to see a mix of citation styles (however, that is a very minor point). DrKay (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You responded too quickly. I'm fixing the citation style now, since I added several more and found which ones seem to be the best (in terms of comprehensibility, range of info, and access). --C S (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I forgot something...usually people expect to see the nomination listed on the project talk page. I'll do that now so we can get further input. --C S (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with cleanup, C S. I think it's a good article - the only thing I can think to complain about is that it waxes verbose on some of the more incidental discussion about false disproofs and conditions that make the theorem inapplicable. These get more attention by laymen but less from experts, who are more interested in things like robust verification of the proof. Dcoetzee 21:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking about that too. I think I can make it less "waxing", but I'm reluctant to remove it entirely. For accessibility reasons, I think it's good to explain that you have to be careful in the precise formulation (although the first section should be shorter), and also, the false proof section is somewhat unusual -- however, given the lengths people spend making those exact mistakes, I think, it is worth pointing them out. At least for the sake of the enjoyment and enlightenment of the general reader. --C S (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2009 (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 discussion.