Suggestions (modern times)

The biographical material

• There are many biographies already out there. The function of the Wikipedia versions should to summarize carefully, and (heh, heh) explain carefully what sources have been used. Instead of item-by-item sourcing, I suggest that each biography have one paragraph discusing the literature. Much more readable, and much more useful.
• I also suggest that the short part be in outline format, with more links to later material. Easier to navigate.
• For many nineteenth century mathematicians, there is much written on them by contemporaries that you can find in scanned material.
• The biographies I see are dull. How to make them more readable, more interesting, without sacrificing accuracy? Occasinal small details can enliven this - quotes from letters, comments friends, poignant moments. The closer to original sources, the more interesting.
• Careful separation of primary and secondary material. As with the Greeks, better references to primary material. More encouragement to read primary material, or at least contemporary accounts.
• I recommend strongly Elstrodt's biography of Dirichlet as a model.
• The main problem is: how to tie the life to the mathematics? Chances are, there would be no reason for the person to be there, except for mathematics. But it is not so clear that in a short biography the two subjects should be mixed. I advise separation.
• More careful selection of references. Some lists, like that for the English Archimedes, are ridiculously long - as well as spurious. There is no justification for referring to most popular accounts of the history of mathematics, except in very precise ways. These books almost always just propagate gossip. They can always be replaced by something more authoritative.
• Be sure that the entry has answered the question: Why does this person have an entry in Wikipedia? Usually, this will involve saying something about mathematics.