Talk:Area of a circle/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add comments over the next couple of days, busy most of today however Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um... I'm not sure why this shouldn't be a quick fail - there are few in-line references, so I can't check what is supporting each part of the text, the article is written in the first person, like a text book, but not an encyclopaedia. There are stylistic (We have the luxury...), and grammatical errors, even in the headings {Archimedes proof) However, it is clear that a lot of work has gone into this, so I'll hold off to give you a chance to justify, fix or withdraw Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: - Peripitus (Talk) 04:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issues I can see are

Written in a rather text-book/lecture style with lots of first person (as noted above)
Lack of inline references (as noted above)
The Archimedes proof has two problems that stand out (to a non-mathematician). "c" is not defined (though on reading it seems clear that it is the circumference) and the proof is not completed, instead relying on the comments on a triangle's area in the lead
Rearrangement proof does not complete the proof and show where pi enters in
The Onion Proof misses the proof that the circumference of the circle = pi*diameter. Without this the result seems to have come from thin air.
From there there are further section issues including ones where mathematical statements are presented without proof.

I understood most of the article I read but I think primarily because I knew the answers before I began. I can see the volume of work that has gone into this but it needs: Work to get the language to a better form, change to inline references, closure of the proofs where presented and needs to be written to be more comprehensible to the target audience. I cannot though comment on whether it broadly covers the topic.

Reply to Peripitus. I agree with most of your comments. Points to note are:

The fact that π is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is the definition of π;

Of course, except that beyond the "of course" note in the lead the article expresses this concept badly - Peripitus (Talk) 11:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical facts can be presented without proofs, as long as references are provided;

Perhaps yes, but proofs should not be left hanging incomplete and the facts should be in a context such that they are adequately comprehensible - Peripitus (Talk) 11:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both the GA and FA criteria allow inline citations to be given in the form of parenthetical (Harvard) references instead of footnotes.

Definately agree - what I mean by inline references are reference within the text. Footnotes, or parenthetical are both ok but there are significant unreferenced parts. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the last point, see WP:WIAGA, footnote 2, and Monty Hall problem. What is needed here are more inline references, not a change to footnotes. Geometry guy 10:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last word? Classicalecon, the nominator, appears never to have edited this article, and has not responded to this GA. I'll leave it for another 24 hrs and then fail due to the faults ouytlined and the lack of response Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noted this. I won't be able to fix the article in the next 24 hours, so please feel free to fail the nomination. I had hoped to make fixes last weekend, but my mathematical article priority at the moment is Penrose tiling. Irrespective of the outcome here, I hope to be able to make improvements soon, as A-Class mathematics articles should not be subject to so many concerns. Geometry guy 23:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]