Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Addition/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC) [1].

---

Addition

Nominator(s): Brirush (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most basic subjects in human life, addition. This article is exceptionally well thought-out, and easily passed a Good Article nomination. One of the goals of any WikiProject is for its top-importance articles to reach Featured Article status, and I believe that this WikiProject Mathematics article meets all of the FA criteria. If all goes well, this would be the first of a number of mathematics articles to be improved and then nominated for FA.Brirush (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• File:Addition01.svg is tagged as missing a description
• Why not use File:Addition_chart.svg?
• File:AdditionLineAlgebraic.svg is tagged as missing a description, same with File:AdditionLineUnary.svg. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria I have added descriptions to the three images and replace the png with an svg. Another editor has fixed the caption. Let me know if there are any other image-related issues I should know about. Thanks! Brirush (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• is the terminology any different in other languages, especially not indo-euroepan ones?

I found this: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/addend#Translations, but it didn't reveal anything insightful. Perhaps I could add Wiktionary links to the article?Brirush (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The terminology is similar in other languages; for instance, in Chinese, the addends are called 加數, literally "addition numbers". In persian, they are called جَمع‌وَند, where جَمع‌ means "sum". I can add this to the article, but with so many language families, all with essentially the same terms, I don't know if it would be helpful.

• I believe some dolphins/orcas and parrots have been able to to addition

Found and added a ref for Asian elephants. No images yet, though. I think images of animals performing addition are very rare, but finding an image of a rhesus macaque or Asian elephant doing something else would be say.Brirush (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I have only found one claim for adding parrots: Alex (parrot) is described in a short Duke University blurb as recognizing 2+2=4. However, none of the numerous sources on his page seem to back up this claim. For dolphins and orcas, the best claims I can find say that they can count up to six, but I have not yet found an addition reference.

"Alex could even add, to a limited extent, correctly giving the number of similar objects on a tray" and has a book ref. First goofle seach I found [2]. Nergaal (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I would love and image like the one here.

Good idea! I'll see what I can do.

• I am not sure I like the bulleted style. Any reason not to use ": [...] " instead? Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Good idea; not sure why I didn't do it originally.

Nergaal (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Nergaal (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

*Addition chart.svg is extremely hard to read without cllicking on it. perhaps increase the font size. why is 17 italicized in AdditionVertical.svg? there should be a ref right after terms, the addends or the summands. I personally haven't heard of these names. augend needs citation " it was once common to add upward" when? where is the character "+" from? when did it first appear? greeks didn't use any symbols how is the "+" defined in ASCII? are there special rules for its shape? "Extending a length" has no citations, same for Successor and Units "This is known as carrying" should have a citation Abacus should be mentioned when do students typically learn addition in school? kindergarden or only 1st grade? ? Nergaal (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC) I added a reference about first graders using math worldwide. Because Kindergarten is not universal, I'm not sure what to put about it. I think I might find a reference saying that addition is typically taught before first grade. Actually, just found a good reference. It is usually taught before school, but countries differ. I' r added it to the article as well. I can't seem to find anywhere mention of what happens in computing when the addition goes beyond the memory limit. I.e. Y2k. didn't ancient merchants have some sort of calculators? not sure if "Blaise Pascal invented the mechanical calculator in 1642" is correct "the poset N2" what is this? why not discuss complex numbers addition? Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Nergaal (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Response to Nergaal I have removed this image, as I don't think it is helpful at this stage of the article, or perhaps any stage. The 17 is italicized as it represents an answer 'pencilled in' after the original problem was given. Usually, there is more italic work shown (such as carrying and such); an example can be seen in subtraction. I think the italicization should remain for continuity with the other articles. Try adding this in the description where the image is located to remove possible confusion. Nergaal (talk) Fixed I've added references for "term", "addend", and "summand". I had a reference for all three at once, but it may have been based on this article itself, so I didn't use it. I expanded the description of adding upwards I added a description of the plus sign's history. Didn't + come about with Arab numerals? I thought so too, but several online sources say it is fairly recent. Apparently the symbol itself is old, but had unrelated meanings (for instance, it was a minus sign when added after a number in Hindu). I have seen no evidence of special rules for +'s shape. I have added ASCII code. et should be italicized? Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC) rm the white space before that sentence pls. Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Finished both. Added refs in the "extending a length" section. Also the successors and units sections. I have added a reference for carrying. I have added material on abacus, taken and adapted from the corresponding article. I'll finish the last few later today.Brirush (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC) I added material from arithmetic overflow. Perhaps add something like "similar errors were expected to happen with y2k" to make this term . Nergaal (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Done. Feel free to suggest more improvements here; as a new section, it may need more work than the rest. The Antikythera mechanism was a mechanical calculator of sorts, but it did not seem to perform arbitrary additions. I think, given the references we have, we should stick with Pascal. fine Poset is partially ordered set; I have expanded the term. I have added material from complex number. Let me know if you have any other concerns, or if you disagree with any of my corrections.Brirush (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Drive by comments on referencing

• Lipschutz Lipson is not in references
• Need first names:
  • Bunt, Jones, and Bedient
  • Davison, Landau, McCracken, and Thompson
  • Baroody and Tiilikainen
  • Fosnot and Dolk
• Be consistent in whether authors are listed with first or last name first
• Only list sources that are cited (others in Further reading):
  • Bunt, Jones, and Bedient not cited
  • Kaplan not cited
  • Williams not cited
  • Davison not cited
  • Baroody and Tiilikainen not cited
  • Weaver not cited (and would need publisher)
  • Poonen not cited
• Book titles should be in title case
• (3e ed.) -> (3rd ed.) (why the "e" - French?)
• Marguin (1994) - why is the book listed twice when short cites are used?
• Wynn, Karen has a title=
• Books should include the publisher:
  • Wynn, Karen needs publisher
  • Baroody and Tiilikainen needs publisher

Aa77zz (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I have completed all of these tasks, as well as a few similar things (a few of the mathematical refs had name problems). Let me know if my new further reading section works. The 3e thing seems to come from someone writing "edition=3e", intending it to come out as "3e" and not "3e Ed".Brirush (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Placeholder, intending to review this in a couple of days. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Sorry but we really should be seeing declarations of support for promotion after this long at FAC, so I'll be archiving this shortly. Per FAC instructions, pls allow two weeks before nominating this or another article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.