Talk:Area/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs) 07:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Interesting! I have done 9 reviews but haven't came across such popular topic which I loved a lot. I'll give out initial review till tonight. — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 07:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

To start off with, I'll give out "general fixes" (with time, I may add more problems)

General fixes

• Images need WP:ALT, thus can you add them to it. Done
• Section references: It contains a sub-section called "Notes". Well, no need of it, thus remove ==Notes== Done
• An approach to defining what is meant by area is through axioms - link Axioms  Done
• For example, we may define area as a function a from a collection M of special kind of plane figures (termed measurable sets) to the set of real numbers which satisfies the following properties: -> Area can be defined as a function from a collection M of special kind of plane figures (termed measurable sets) to the set of real numbers which satisfies the following properties:  Done
• (See, for example, Elementary Geometry from an Advanced Standpoint by Edwin Moise) - odd. Please either remove it or add it in the form of ref  Done, the user who added the ref is now inactive, but I've AGF'ed and found it on google books, adding a full citation using the cite book template.
• The are was the original unit of area in the metric system, with -> The "Are" was the original unit of area in the metric system, with;  Done

Ref fixes

• ref 11 - is a linkrot, please expand it  Done using {{Cite Journal}} template.
• ref 12 - ISBN?  Not done, not applicable.
• ref 7 - ISBN?  Done

— TheSpecialUser ^(TSU)

All done, at 14:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC) -  Done --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Nitpicks aside, I see some pretty major organizational problems with this article. The purpose of the lead section is to summarize the major points of the body of the article; a person who skips the lead and reads the body should not miss out on anything. Currently, this is not the case. The lead attempts to provide the uninformed reader with an intuitive understanding of the concept (which is commendable), whereas the body gives a rigorous mathematical definition, and there is literally no overlap between the two approaches.

"Area plays an important role in modern mathematics." This sentence, and much of the paragraph that follows it, is completely unsubstantiated by the body of the article. Conversions does not belong in this article. Basic area formula, List of formulae, and Additional formulae are largely redundant and should merged into a single section. Minimization is blatantly incomplete, and even if it were fleshed out further, it should probably be generalized to Optimization.

Another major issue is the deficiency of sources. Much of the article is unsourced, and 13 references is not nearly enough to summarize a topic as pervasive as this one. My recommendation to the author: compile a collection of scholarly sources (e.g. math textbooks, math history books, and journal articles) and use them to rewrite the body of the article from scratch. Once that's done, trash the current lead and write a new one to summarize the new body. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I agree with most of the points, and am currently doing a major re-structuring, but would disagree with the conversion being un-necessary. How would you suggest giving the uninformed reader an intuitive view within the body of the article?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Related to Cryptic C62's complaint about sources, I think we should not be using MathWorld as a source in a good article; it has too many inaccuracies, and is better as an external link. The math.com link is even more dubious. In any case, the subject of this article is so basic that it should not be difficult to find good textbook sources for everything in it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of slimming down the current lead and using it as a basic explanation, and adding a new lead summarising the whole article. (Away until monday)--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

My comments

My next issue would be about refs and prose. It is already stated above that the lead doesn't summarize the article and gives few new things which is not covered later in the article. I'd suggest looking at Pi and take it as an example and work on this. There are ton of things that need refs. This looks like a quick fail but I'd live to keep this open for 1 week minimum. I'd be also working on article a bit (As a reviewer, I m not restricted to do that and even if I were, I'd just boldly ignore it. Remember; Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules). I'd add few sources but I were never good at Math and thus won't be able to contribute more. It looks too tough overall to refimprove it or to establish the prose. I'd suggest the nominator to withdraw (so that I can fail it) as this issue I don't think can be addressed in 2-3 weeks. Awaiting response. — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 15:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)