This article was nominated for deletion on 29 June 2021. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
A fact from The Equidistribution of Lattice Shapes of Rings of Integers of Cubic, Quartic, and Quintic Number Fields appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 July 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Created by Pburka (talk). Self-nominated at 21:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I shall review this. Schwede66 08:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original hook is fascinating; it really draws the reader in. There are a few issues, though. There's a maintenance tag that needs to be addressed. There's (non-straightforward) disambiguation required. The big issue that I have is the super-heavy reliance on direct quotes. Doing prose size the old fashioned way (in MS Word) and comparing the article "as is" and a version with all the direct quotes stripped, they make up a whopping 28%. There aren't hard and fast rules on this, but Wikipedia:QUOTEFARM recommends that "quotations should not dominate the article". In my view, that threshold has been crossed and the article should be reworked to get the proportion and number of direct quotes down. Beyond that, the article is new, long enough, and free of POV. Earwig expresses unhappiness ("Violation Possible: 45.4% similarity") but it's all the direct quotes plus the rather long book title. Suitably referenced. Regarding ALT0, the four sources are all good; note I have not checked ALT1 or ALT2. So, there's a bit of work to do. AFAICS, the nominator has two previous DYks so a QPQ is not required. Schwede66 09:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added section headings (although I don't feel they're necessary in a relatively short article), and I've pared down the quotations. I'm reluctant to paraphrase the author too much, as I don't wish to inadvertently distort her message. I'm going to have to do some more research to figure out the correct disambiguation for real space. Let me know what you think. pburka (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguation has been dealt with, now, too. pburka (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0 is good to go. For clarity, I've struck ALT1 and ALT2 as I haven't checked those hook facts. If anyone prefers one of those hooks, they need checking first. Good work! Schwede66 00:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
. The article is currently at AFD. Desertarun (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AfD closed as "no consensus", and no significant changes have been made to the article since Schwede66's review, so restoring their review tick. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]