This is the sort of article that Wikipedia necessarily does badly at - as anybody who thinks about it for a few minutes must realize would be the case. An ad hoc committee not in regular communication can often do a very good job of putting together a collection of facts. Connections between facts are harder because they are often not explicitly in the literature - and Wikipedia [correctly - there are other fora for that] discourages "original research" and "opinion". Similarly, balanced emphasis in long articles is difficult because (as intended) no one person writes all of it, and if the person writing about non-normal whiffle theorists has more spare time and enthusiasm than the person writing on quasinormal whiffle theorists, the non-normal group end up with disproportionate coverage. (For obvious reasons, the less-prolific writer would not be popular if [s]he ripped out an inexpert selection of several hours of the other writer's work to correct this!) And omissions are problematic. In a good single-author article, we could conclude that if there was nothing about X's contributions to the field, they were probably quite minor. A Wikipedia article does not permit this deduction. Can't we just accept that Wikipedia has its weaknesses as well as its strengths? For instance, in a paper encyclopedia you would be lucky to find an article on category theory at all; Wikipedia does not have to keep within (say) 15,000 pages for all topics. This article is probably fairly reliable on who _was_ working on what when; it should not be trusted for who was _not_ working on something, or whose work was most important, and may be dubious on priority. To damn it for this is like damning a thesaurus for not being an etymological dictionary - a sign that somebody is contemplating using a specialized tool for the wrong purpose. Robert Dawson [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]