Wikipedia:Peer review/179 (number)/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to improve the quality of number articles on Wikipedia, 179 seems like a nice one to start off with. I know the article is very short; I reduced the size drastically from this previous version because the information seemed to trivial to be worth mentioning.
I'd also appreciate comments about (the lack of) references, and whether more should be added. Any other ideas/suggestions/complaints/questions are of course welcome as well. Thanks, Ypnypn (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- My first suggestion is to completely re-write the article so that it isn't a series of sentences that begin with 'it' or '179'. That style of prose isn't very interesting or engaging to read. Try mixing it up—writing the sentences in different ways—and avoid repetitive wording.
- Since the article is so brief, my second suggestion is to spend more time developing and clarifying the jargon. You need to explain the terminology so the meanings are clear to a non-mathematician, while showing why the information is relevant to the number 179. If you do it well, you may fill out the article to a satisfactory degree and make it more interesting to read. Praemonitus (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- What I usually do when working on number articles such as this one: Search OEIS for the number + the keyword "nice", scan through all of the search results looking for the most interesting of the properties that it finds, and add a sentence for each of these properties, using the {{SloanesRef}} template as the reference. Sometimes it is helpful to search Wikipedia for the OEIS sequence number: for instance, you wouldn't be able to tell just from the OEIS entry that A006450 corresponds to the Wikipedia article on super-primes. In the current article, being a prime or an Eisenstein prime are not particularly interesting (they are important properties of numbers, and the prime one at least should be mentioned, but 179 is too far from the start of the lists of these numbers to make it notable for having these properties). The Chen and reptend properties may be more interesting. Properties that depend on decimal representations such as being a palindromic number are rarely interesting so should be mentioned only in moderation. Properties like "prime congruent to 3 mod 4" or "prime power" that basically follow just from being a prime should not be mentioned at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)