Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating/Area of a disk

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The consensus is to promote to A class. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Area of a disk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) review
Nominated by: KSmrq^T

Minor point in the Archimedes proof section. I think it need to restate which triangle we are talking about, just to make the section self consistant. As ever reference, if it wants to become an FA it will need some references inline. While reading it I did feel the need for references for each section. --Salix alba (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Triangle is now explicit so section is self-contained.

It does not want to become FA. Our mathematics citation guidelines do not require in-line references, but I agree that here a few could be a convenience for the reader. The citations are collected at the end, and (thanks to COGDEN's {{Citation}} template) we can now hyperlink Harvard-style; will do so. --KSmrq^T 23:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I reformatted the two tables using CSS. Here are some more comments about other sections. I am assuming that this article is aimed at an audience with little more than a United States high school education in geometry. The second person is used very frequently in this article; I will try to rephrase some sentences to reduce it.

1. Archimedes proof. An image showing the circle and triangle would be nice.
2. Onion proof. It would be nice if the image used Δt instead of dt and the article explained (maybe vaguely) why this works. That would make this section less stubby at the same time. Readers are likely to be confused when they run into a diagram labeled with dt if they took high school calc in the US.
3. Fast approximation. The derivation is probably written over the head of the audience.
4. Dart throwing. I would be interested for a source for the rule of thumb about how many samples are needed, since I don't know much about Monte Carlo methods.

CMummert · talk 23:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ad 4) I'm overseas, so can't help with a reference (which the article does need), but I can confirm the rule of thumb. The precise statement is that the standard deviation of the result you get by throwing darts is proportional to 1/sqrt(N) when N is number of darts. This is basically the central limit theorem.

PS: Google Books finds Computational Physics by J. M. (Joseph Marie) Thijssen, p. 273 [1]. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good overall. I'm somewhat unhappy with the "generalizations" section. So I fixed it to be more intuitive and descriptive (fixing a missing π in the process). --C S (Talk) 06:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any outstanding issues. Time to promote? CMummert · talk 17:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.