Talk:British mathematician Richard K. Guy dies at 103

Review of revision 4551320 [Not ready]

Revision 4551320 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: A great deal of the background information, I did not see in the sources: the Number Theory Foundation, gliders (which btw ought to be explained a bit; I suspect fewer than half a dozen words could do it), etc. All facts in our articles need to be verifiable from the cited sources. Note that Wikipedia is not acceptable as a source (and, btw, we also cannot copy text from Wikipedia, as the licenses are incompatible: using Wikipedia text on Wikinews is a violation of their terms of copyright over there, even if credit is given here). Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4551320 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: A great deal of the background information, I did not see in the sources: the Number Theory Foundation, gliders (which btw ought to be explained a bit; I suspect fewer than half a dozen words could do it), etc. All facts in our articles need to be verifiable from the cited sources. Note that Wikipedia is not acceptable as a source (and, btw, we also cannot copy text from Wikipedia, as the licenses are incompatible: using Wikipedia text on Wikinews is a violation of their terms of copyright over there, even if credit is given here). Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 4551626 [Passed]

Revision 4551626 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: It really doesn't work well to try to retrofit sources to news copy after it's written: choose your sources first, and write from the information provided by those sources; if you then want to add information to the article not in the sources, find sourcing and add the sourcing before adding the information to the article. Additional sourcing was provided, and extended verification by quite a bit; but there were still a number of important things I was unable to find and, since this is getting close to its outer limit (three calendar days after the event), I cut everything out that I couldn't find. Unfortunately, the paragraph on specific mathematical achievements was hard-hit. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4551626 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: It really doesn't work well to try to retrofit sources to news copy after it's written: choose your sources first, and write from the information provided by those sources; if you then want to add information to the article not in the sources, find sourcing and add the sourcing before adding the information to the article. Additional sourcing was provided, and extended verification by quite a bit; but there were still a number of important things I was unable to find and, since this is getting close to its outer limit (three calendar days after the event), I cut everything out that I couldn't find. Unfortunately, the paragraph on specific mathematical achievements was hard-hit. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

@Pi zero: Thanks for reviewing the article. I must admit it's hard to write well-sourced obituaries for mathematicians. One thing I've noticed is there often isn't much coverage when mathematicians leave the mortal coil. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I saw a mathematician had died a while back, myself, and momentarily considered writing it up for Wikinews before realizing it was already more than three days after the event. Thanks for writing this.

(Btw, generally avoid using "social media" sources such as Medium; I did allow it this time, with a great deal of surreptitious sanity-checking and even a dose of personal knowledge of mathematics shoring it up, but consider it a one-time sort of thing.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, usually I try to avoid Medium unless the author is notable in their field. I begrudgingly used it as a source only because I couldn't find many others with such detailed information. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)