Wikipedia:Peer review/Pi/archive1

Pi

I think this article needs somebody with a lot of time and mathematical experience to review this article. It has a lot of math terms in in and I hope that people other than just me could take a look and see if anything is wrong. Thanks. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 22:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RJH

As far as I can see upon a quick glance through, the math looks okay. Here's a few issues that struck me while reading the article:

Statements like "fascinated", "remarkable", "occurs often" and "difficult to understand" express a point of view, so they either need to be backed up with a citation or rendered more neutral in style.
There are a number of facts on this page that, while true, are unsourced. For example, "It remains the formula of choice for π calculating software..."
The constant e is first introduced without explanation, as is the gamma function Γ(1/4). e is then defined down in the complex analysis section.
Overall I think there may need to be more explanation of the jargon for the non-mathematically inclined. For example, the summation formula in the "Age of computers" section. Both the factorial and the summation symbols may need to be explained. Likewise the absolute value brackets in the "Naturality" section and integrals starting in the geometry section. About all I can say about the Physics section is that the formulae are meaningless without an explanation of the parameters and some clarification of their purpose.
Is the continued fraction really appropriate for the infobox? Shouldn't it be down in the body of the article? At first glance it would also seem rather useless, so why is it of particular note to the reader (other than as a triumph of mathematical theorists)?

I hope this was somewhat helpful. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]