It is near impossible to write a funny article about mathematics. This is (at the time I put this up for review) incomplete, but about the closest I can get so far. I'm more than happy to get constructive feedback. Detail is good. Pup • Talkies • 08:19 18 Mar
Won't do a pee review, but I can't wait to read this when it's complete or after the pee review suggestions. I haven't read it yet, but da (jeez, I'm typing like the Kubrick page), but the feeling I have is that it's a masterwork. A question, did you want only people that know maths to dwelve into it and review it? If you can get through his stuff that new guy, the math wiz from wikipedia, might give some good advice. He's only like 7 or something, so you can't expect Einstein, but he can, and that will make it an interesting read. Aleister 20:30 3-19 maybe (UTC)
Actually I have no preference as to the persons mathematical nous. It's supposed to be funny first and foremost, which means I'd like it to be reviewed on the funny aspect. Pup • Talkies • 11:06 18 Mar
All right I'm gonna take a shot at reviewing this sucker... we'll see how that goes. -Fe+3 AlFe+2 04:38, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
This is a perfect example of how the line between reality and the nonsense of world should be blurred- great job! It has a nice style of general nonsense presented in such a serious and elegant way that it flows really well. These are the highlights of my notes while reading:
Galileo reference isn't too unrealistic and fits well with actual conflict he had with the church.
Etymology- nonsense presented in a very elegant way.
Notation, language, and rigor- certainly seems to be the case. The table of symbols is done well. More greek letters could be added I suppose but that might just turn it into a piece of listcruft... proceed with caution.
Fields of Mathematics
-Fundamentals- i have no idea if these are legit claims or if it's just general BS but it works (and I'm not just saying that because I'm too lazy to look it up). Diagram is good too.
Quantity- Perfect... okay I might change real numbers to have it conclude with the ever chiched "Free-candy" pedo-van but that's it.
Structure, Space, and Change aren't done yet obviously so to criticize those would be about as pointless as <insert witty, penis-related joke here>.
Intellectual safety levels go off into left field and then snap back to reality nicely.
Footnotes- I appreciated the year math. The rest refrain from stupidity= good.
Writing about math of all things is challenging but the serious tone throughout the whole thing is great. I can appreciate the "Forever Alone" image being projected onto mathematicians, but stating that they aren't getting any (hint-hint, wink-wink, nudge-nudge) at the end of every section is somewhat repetitive and stresses the idea too much- the article is about math in general not just the mathematicians.
Prose and formatting:
Should the article be converted to a 3rd person point of view to give it more of an encyclopedic feel?... It's neither noticeable, nor that big of a deal, but is something to think about. I'm a Grammar Nazi and I could not find many issues with grammar, sentence structure, etc.: gold star for you :D.
Unedited pictures remain consistent with the serious style the article is written in. Captions are appropriate and not over the top; they give each of their respective pictures a modest touch (not that kind of touch you pervert).
This article deserves each and every one of these points in my expert opinion. (BTW I averaged the scores... okay now I can't think of the joke I was going to make about averaging the scores for the math page... poop.
Thanks for a great article. I really want to see this when it hits mainspace. I hope this was the kind of detail you wanted. If not, then feel free to rip on me for being a general dolt.