3) The pattern of the first two series are plain to the lay readers. for an FA status article, a cite is needed 2) This is an article on pi, not an article on convergence.
Sławomir Biały ( talk) 01:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC) My concerns are the following:ġ) There is no citation given to demonstrate the validity of the series. However, I do support a rewrite that might assuage these objections. As presently written, I agree this is not suitable for the article. Price talk 00:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC) I agree to a certain extent, but I think the simplicity of the arcsine series isn't well emphasized in the current edit (what's the general term? not clear) nor why it's an improvement over the other two methods. Noleander ( talk) 15:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Because the arcsine series is simple and highly convergent. Noleander ( talk) 03:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Any thoughts on this? I propose to remove the 3rd example, unless there is a good reason put forth as to why 3 is better than 2 for the readers. Why stop at 3? why not 4? 5? But, in any case, that 3rd series needs a citation or it should be removed. I don't think a 3rd series is needed to demonstrate the convergence principle: there are hundreds of series for pi it takes only 2 to illustrate the point to lay readers. To whomever add the 3rd series ("Another that converges even more rapidly is the arcsine series" ) into the "Rate of Convergence" section.
27 Broader "Use" (Applications) Coverage? Need your Opinions!.25 Split the History section just before the computer era?.22 Edited mention of Euclidean geometry in first paragraph of body.13 The fallacy of Point, Line and the Death of Pi.8 They had shirts made up and everything.2 It is time to move Tau out of the In popular culture section.