Wikipedia:Featured article review/Polar coordinate system/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC).

Polar coordinate system

 * Notified: Mets501, WikiProject Mathematics, WikiProject Systems, Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, 2021-04-10

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are multiple uncited paragraphs throughout the article and the sources in "General references" should be consulted and used as references in the article or deleted. No major improvements have been posted since the notice was placed in April. Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The sourcing is indeed bad, with many paragraphs and entire sections unsourced. I also think that many sections are too much of the flavor of "here is a mass of equations" without any explanation what the equations are for, and that some of the sections are far from the central topic of the article. More than sourcing for the individual equations, what we need here is sourcing for why these are important aspects of polar coordinates (for instance: "Co-rotating frame", a piece of physics for which polar coordinates are convenient, but not actually about polar coordinates). Some sections that do belong are haphazardly organized: "complex numbers" really belongs together with the Cartesian coordinate conversions, and "Intersection of two polar curves" really belongs with "Polar equation of a curve". This looks more like C-class than FA to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Move to FARC Not even close, no engagement, subject matter expert agrees this one is problematic. Hog Farm Talk 17:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I would love to assist in saving this rather ... ravaged article's FA status. Is there any sort of plan or task-list to follow? Knowing the answer is no, can we make one?

I should warn of my inexperience and lack of expertise, as I am, in fact, new to this sort of project. I merely hope that:
 * 1) I can execute others' instructions properly
 * 2) I am not speaking in an empty archive or something (re:inexperience)

Horsesizedduck (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * - can probably speak to this a little better than me, but essentially this needs a complete overhaul on the sourcing from somebody who is both very familiar with higher math and familiar with the WP:FACR criteria for sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 04:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's nothing in the subject matter preventing it from reaching that standard, and the expertise required is not that high compared with many mathematics topics, but it needs a lot of work (which I don't have time for this week, at least) and I don't think the time pressure of getting it all done within the period of the FAR is helpful. It's not like some other FARs I've seen where the bones of the article are strong and it just needs a little plastering over with better referencing. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to do as I can, and I have some mathematical knowledge, but I am somewhat disconnected to the use of sources: I simply don't own most books mentioned and don't have access to the articles. That said, I notice there are segments of the article that swerve off-topic, and I can help with those. Most of all, it may be imperative to involve more people in this process. Horsesizedduck (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Removing the off-topic material is a great start. Additional sources are at Google Scholar, archive.org, and WP:LIBRARY. Other editors might come and help edit the article, but it is more likely that you will be the only one doing the majority of edits. The FAR coordinators are willing to keep articles on hold as long as improvements are ongoing. Z1720 (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I feel like I must recommend that the article lose its FA status. I'm more than willing to continue spending time on it, but, as it stands, the article does not deserve to keep its stripes while I presumably take ages to iron it out. Horsesizedduck (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist no edits since late June, when Horsesizedduck edited the article. Improvements have stalled, and users working on the article believe this is ready to delist. Z1720 (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist, possibly accelerated - it looks like just about everyone involved with this thinks it is a good bit away from the criteria. Hog Farm Talk 22:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.