Wikipedia:Peer review/Sine and cosine/archive1

Sine and cosine

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a potential FA. Furthermore, it is a level 5 vital article, and since it is B-class, it would be hard to improve it under WP:AFI

Thanks, Brachy08 (Talk)(Contribs) 08:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

Hey Brachy0008! I'm pushing the limits of my math knowledge with the content of this article, but I've identified a few things that I feel could be improved on:

The lead doesn't summarize all of the article's content; I didn't catch any mention of the software implementations, for example.
Multiple sections are unreferenced, so many that I can't list them all here.
The citation style is highly inconsistent. There's a lot of information that's missing from citations that are present in others; some citations don't even use a template, and read more like footnotes than citations.
Related to the previous point, citations 28 to 34 are one step away from being bare URLs, with only the names of the documents being mentioned.
Some sections can be merged; for example, "Law of sines" and "Law of cosines" can be made subsections of a new section "Laws".
Trigonometric functions § History can be removed from the {{Main article}} template at the top of the "History" section as it's redundant with History of trigonometry.
Since this article gets a little deep in the weeds with some sections, make sure you're following the guidelines on technical content at WP:MTAU. For example, I feel like the term "identity" deserves a short explanation when it's first brought up.
I'd recommend that the {{Math}} template be used to render expressions in running prose in serif.

Hope that gives you a place to start with working on this article. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 12:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brachy0008: Any update with regards to my or Z1720's comments? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I tried adding software implementations content to the lead, and it got reverted. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brachy0008: Don't be discouraged by a revert! It's quite normal for another editor to disagree with some of your changes — I would start a discussion on the talk page and ping the reverting editor for their input. See also: WP:BRD. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coments from Z1720

I suggest taking this to WP:GAN before bringing it to FAC so that you can get additional feedback on improving this article. Here are some comments after a quick skim:

The article needs more inline citations. Every paragraph should have an inline citation at the end of it, minimum.
References don't need quotations from the source in them. I suggest removing these.
There's a lot of articles listed in the "See also" section. Are they all necessary? Consult MOS:SEEALSO for Wikipedia's guidance on this.
Avoid one-sentence paragraphs.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]