Wikipedia:Peer review/Sine and cosine/archive1

Sine and cosine


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,  Brachy 08  (Talk)  (Contribs)  08:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69
Hey ! 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".
 * 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)
 * @Brachy0008: Any update with regards to my or Z1720's comments? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I tried adding software implementations content to the lead, and it got reverted.  Brachy 08  (Talk) 01:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @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)

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)