In my opinion, this article meets the criteria outlined at the featured article criteria.It has been given good article status and has gone through a peer review, where the concerns have been addressed, and has been reviewed by several editors from WikiProject Mathematics.I don't believe in claiming an article as your own, so I won't call this a self-nomination, but I am the creator and largest contributor to the article. —Mets501 (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Something is wrong with the last two citations and I don't know how to fix it. Otherwise the article looks very good. Christopher Parham(talk) 06:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see the problem.Are you talking about formatting or the links? —Mets501 (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes. I see it now. —Mets501 (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment web site refs are not in consistent format, make all same with site link, published, retrieval date, etc. Rlevse 12:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, they should all be the same now, except the FAA cite, where it's a guidebook with no main author. —Mets501 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Support I learned something! Good clear, easy-to-understand images. We desperately need more mathematics FA's. Leon math 16:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Object (regretfully, we do need more math FA) I did a thorough review of the first half of the article and found the article to be below FA standards. The writing is ok, although some copyediting would really improve the flow, the images are nice but I found a few imprecise or outright misleading mathematical statements (notably the bit about "every line not going through the pole is perpendicular to some radial line" which I now changed.) So I expect that the second half suffers from the same problems and I would suggest to ask for a thorough double-check of the article by people involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics before going further. Pascal.Tesson 20:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it true that every line not passing through the pole is perpendicular to some line that does pass through the pole? What did you find unsatisfactory about the cited source? Christopher Parham(talk) 21:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I also think that you're mistaken.Lines are infinite, so you can just take the negative reciprocal of the slope m of any line and the perpendicular radial line will have the equation y=−x/m. —Mets501 (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Well of course, I don't disagree with that. The problem is that the sentence was suggesting that this was only true of lines that don't go through the pole. The problem with these lines is that the formula that was given a line below was incorrect for r_0 = 0. I expect that most people without any mathematical training would read ""every line not going through the pole is perpendicular to some radial line" and think "they must mean that there are lines that go through the pole and are not perpendicular to any radial line". Which of course is completely incorrect as I've tried to point out with my edit. Pascal.Tesson 22:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The article has been greatly improved from your vote to this time; I suggest you may want to reconsider. —Mets501 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Further objections I think the applications section is entirely missing the point and should be rewritten. It is giving a couple of apparently arbitrarily chosen examples without stressing the obvious: polar coordinates are useful in any situation where the phenomenon being considered is inherently tied to direction and length. Aviation uses polar coordinates? Well sure but so does navigation, so does someone who uses a compass, so do robots. Polar coordinates are useful when studying microphones? Sure but they're useful to study anything that has to do with wave propagation, circular motion. The bit about the Archimedean spiral and scroll compressors have nothing to do with polar coordinates (or at least does not constitute an "application of polar coordinates") and should remain in the article Archimedean spiral. Pascal.Tesson 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to sound like the guy who just complains but no, it does not help. At least not enough and I don't think there's an easy fix for this section as its problems are much deeper. Take the aviation bit. What is being described there is not even a system of polar coordinates per se. If the weather says that the wind will blow at 50 km/h from the south-east, we don't view this as a system of polar coordinates and we probably shouldn't. The point about robots is a bit more convincing but it is not written properly: the advantage of the polar system is not that it avoids the necessity for the robot to keep track of its location in the coordinate system. If the robot was for some reason restricted to moving along perpendicular axes, the robot would be using a cartesian system in the same advantageous way. I don't know about the history of that section but it seems like it came from an old trivia-like section of examples. I think the best option is to scrap it entirely and rewrite it from scratch with an emphasis on basic principles. What are the basic advantages of a polar system? What situations are typically easier to handle with a polar system? Why? Then the list of examples will flow naturally. Also, there is no need to start discussing Wnt proteins in this article. Pascal.Tesson 02:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I see your point here. In practice, the representation of a point is frequently switched back and forward between polar and cartesian cordinated, as suits the particular need at that time, so . Perhaphs the most important feature is which set of coordinates is used to store or record the positions, and how the positions are communicated. By this criteria the aviation, (actually much of navigation) example is important, as a variation of polar coordinates giving angle and distance is used to comunicate positions of objects. Then we have modelling situations where a simpler model of a system can be expressed in polar coordinates, if something exhibits a radial symmetry then polar coordinates will be useful, for examples the Groundwater flow equation when applied to radial symetric wells. The other situation where polar cordinates will be useful for modelling is when there is a radial force or a point source, so Orbit (celestial mechanics), electro-statics, various forms of difusions (say ripples produced fropping a stone in water). Finally theres calculations where poloar coordinates make calculation easier. There a host of electronic applications where its more convienient to use the polar form of complex numbers to represent phase and such like. --Salix alba (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. What I'm saying is that the section should be rewritten to look like an expanded version of your comment. Then examples don't look like completely arbitrarily chosen but rather like illustrations of the simple principles that make polar coordinates useful. If you look at the current set of examples, you almost begin to wonder why Newton would even have felt the need for polar coordinates. Pascal.Tesson 23:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Salix alba has created and I have edited a replacement for the current applications section at Polar coordinate system/draft.I think it addresses the concerns you have above and I will add it to the article if you agree. —Mets501 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Much better I think. I've made a change and left a comment. More later. Pascal.Tesson 23:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I've put the new section into the article.It's definitely much much better than before. —Mets501 (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Object Pascal.Tesson and Salix alba have pursuaded me that the Applications section needs help, and more importantly, that it will be possible to fix it. I also have a few points that I hope are easier to address:
The "History" section is overall a pleasant surprise, but after reading it, I don't understand what "Sir Isaac Newton was the first to consider polar coordinates as a method of locating any point in the plane" means. Then what did the mathematicians in the second paragraph do?
You're right, that is contradictory.Salix alba wrote the history section, so I'll ask him what he meant to say. —Mets501 (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I wrote the first stub-section of history (in response to a peer comment on good article review), so I will take responsibility for any contradiction, although I could pass the buck to Harvard Professor Julian Coolidge's article which was my reference. I don't believe it's an actual contradiction, though: I believe the meaning is that the earlier mathematicians used concepts of polar coordinates to solve specific problems relating to curves, areas, etc., while Newton was the first to think in terms of a coordinate system as such, that is, the ability to locate any point using the radius and angle, convert from one system to the other, and so forth. It's a fine distinction and a further look at the references (by someone more learned than I) might help clarify the matter. Newyorkbrad 01:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry!I didn't mean to take the credit away from you :-).I'll take a look at the refs to try and clear things up, although I wouldn't consider myself more learned then you. —Mets501 (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, if that's the case then the presence of the phrases "formal coordinate system … introduced the concepts" in the second paragraph is probably the problem. If possible it would be great to know exactly which concepts they used, if not the full coordinate system concept. I see that  isn't very helpful; someone (learned or not) ought to look up the full article, and then with any luck all will be clear. Melchoir 02:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it's true, and a good look at that article would help (although I don't have access to it) to verify that, but for now I've removed/rephrased the sentence and added a ref, as we don't want any possibly untrue information in the article. —Mets501 (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It's strange that there's a "Calculus" section that has so much information on the calculus of curves and computing areas, but none on partial differential equations. Shouldn't there be some formulas involving, for example, the Laplacian in polar coordinates?
Perhaps you can help out a bit with this? (Not meaning to sound rude in the least)I'm really only in my first year of calculus; I don't know enough about partial differential equations to write about it and I know nothing about the Laplacian. —Mets501 (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I should have seen that coming! It's only fair to ask me to help out, but to be frank, I'd rather not. Can someone else…? Perhaps I'll chip in if the other issues with the article are taken care of but this one isn't, and it looks like it's about to be Featured. Melchoir 02:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, no problem. —Mets501 (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The table of contents is a little overwhelming. Can single-paragraph sections like "Use of radian measure" and "Other curves" be handled differently? Melchoir 01:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Aside from removing the heading ===Use of radian measure=== I'm at a bit of a loss on how to fix this.Do you have any ideas? —Mets501 (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was hoping that a better solution could be found for "Other curves", since it wouldn't really fit at the end of the preceding subsection. You could try moving that subsection to the top of its parent section "Polar equations" (and rephrasing it to make sense there). Or it might be better to expand it to a size where it deserves the heading. In my opinion the perfect solution would be to dedicate a summary-style daughter article to the material in the "Polar equations". The benefit there is that in the daughter article you can spend as much space as you like on sections for trivia, while the summary in the parent article is more streamlined and only deals with the most important examples. One of my goals with the Grandi's series article is to demonstrate how this strategy can work, but I have yet to do that. So… does any of that help? Melchoir 02:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Not sure that's the best solution here. The section on polar equations is really good and FA status would not even be a consideration without it. It has the cool pictures too! But I agree that the other curves subsection should be merged with the introductory paragraphs of the section. This also gives an opportunity to explain the advantages of polar coordinates. Pascal.Tesson 02:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with Pascal Tession on this.I'll work on this article more tomorrow; now it's late and I'm going to sleep. —Mets501 (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, the TOC has been shortened now so that there are no one-sentence or two-sentence sections. —Mets501 (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
My above issues have either been dealt with or, in the case of vector calculus, I have convinced myself in the timeless spirit of avoiding work that nothing needs to be done. The information I wanted can be found where it belongs, in 3D articles like Del in cylindrical and spherical coordinates. But the new Applications section raises too many questions for me. I understand using the polar coordinate system as a human to simplify symbolic calculations, but how does a robot "use" the coordinate system? Is it really an AI application or just vanilla coding? What's this slight modification alluded to? Isn't it more common for a robot arm's configuration space to be a godawful, high-dimensional monstrosity? Does a cardioid microphone really have an approximate 1=r = a + a sin θ curve or is that just a misunderstanding based on the presence of the word "cardioid"? Melchoir 23:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as robots, I'm fine removing that info from the article if you'd like.Microphones really do have an approximate r = a + a sin θ curve, though (see the bottom of  for an example reference). —Mets501 (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, if no one comes up with a source that explains the robots, then it doesn't belong. And… allchurchsound.com? Doesn't look reliable to me. Melchoir 00:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the robot info.As far as the source, I don't really plan on using that one in the source, it was just to demonstrate that it really does have a cardioid curve representation (see also ,  (at the bottom), , and  (in the middle)] for another random sampling).All of these have the cardioid plotted on a set of polar axes as a true cardioid (although the entire coordinate system is rotated in some).None of the references may be reliable in themselves, but the sheer number of them available should prove the point. —Mets501 (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
None of those websites even claims an equation. This is a mathematics article, and we can't go calling everything that looks like a heart a cardioid. Look, I just found a reference on Google Books that makes a mathematical claim, so I'll adjust to that and cite it. Melchoir 01:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
…Uh, I guess my edit was okay then? Well, I'm out of ideas, so I shall switch to
Great!(Yes, your edit was good). —Mets501 (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Just went back to my trusted Merzbach History of Mathematics to figure out the history of it all. Merzbach credits Newton and Bernoulli as in the article. Also notes the ensuing work of Jacob Hermann and says that Euler's description of polar coordinates in Introductio was so good that people often attributed their introduction to him. I will try to fit that in. Pascal.Tesson 02:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Awesome.I'll be checking out the library tomorrow for other references as well. —Mets501 (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Check the talk page, I did a bit of digging through various online sources to try to work out the history, which is rather involved, and theres some direct quote there. --Salix alba (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I had to read this article after I saw a seemingly incongruous comment about Wnt proteins scroll by.Most definitely, the applications section needs rewriting as suggested above; currently the assembly of examples has no particular coherence and doesn't seem to have been deliberately chosen so much as accumulated. I would really remove the limb morphogenesis stuff altogether and concentrate on more relevant examples; 'used in one admittedly poor model of a biological process' is hardly the most notable choice of examples. Opabinia regalis 01:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Just couldn't resist the Wnt proteins in an article about a coordinate system :) For future reference, creating subpages in mainspace doesn't work; your "draft" is currently an article (notice how it doesn't have the usual backlink just under the title?). Usually drafts and workspaces for an article should hang off its talk:. Opabinia regalis 02:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know subpages don't work in mainspace, but this is only temporary.We'll archive it into talk space when we're done with it. —Mets501 (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to double-post from above: the applications section has been completed and merged into the article. —Mets501 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak support I'm still not too thrilled with the applications section but I made some minor modifications which I feel make the section acceptable. I still think it fails, to a certain extent, to convey the correct intuition but I'm too lazy to give a serious go at rewriting it. Although I'm not convinced that this is the perfect article, I really think it's close. Pascal.Tesson 19:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Weak points, as I see them: too much reliance on online sources / too few textbooks; generalization section for integrals (the last sentence is not very clear and perhaps we should explain why it's a generalization, though I'm not sure of the latter); converting differentials / PDEs from Cartesian to polar missing (echoing Melchoir above). But overall it looks very good. I need to have another look before deciding whether to support. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added two textbooks; I was positive I had added them before...perhaps they'd been removed in some other edit. —Mets501 (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
That messes up the formatting of the references section, but I'm not too worried about that; it may not be possible to fix it in the current implementation. However, the calculus section is imprecise in a couple of places: the first sentence of "integral calculus", the last sentence of "generalization", and the last sentence of "vector calculus". I tried to find a better formulation, but unsuccessfully: it's not easy to get it right without descending in convoluted pedantry. I'll stay on the fence regarding supporting or opposing for now. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you can try to fix it? :-) I don't know enough about vector calculus or the generalization section to know if it's wrong or not.And would it be better if the first sentence of integral calculus read "To find the area enclosed by a curve r(θ) on a closed interval [a, b], where 0 < b − a < 2π, the curve is first expressed as a Riemann sum." —Mets501 (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It took a while before I found both inspiration and time, but I now found a better formulations for the sentences in "integral calculus" and its "generalization" that I complained about. I resolved my issue with the final bit in "vector calculus" by deleting it as I don't think it's that important; see Talk:Polar coordinate system. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
For r = 0, θ can be set to any real value, but is conventionally set to 0.
I'm not aware of any such convention existing, and am curious exactly where this assertion comes from. -- Bentsm 04:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
You're right; now that you've mentioned it I've looked into it further, and it appears that most places assign the pole to the coordinates (0,θ), with θ being an arbitrary angle. I'm going to change that in the article now. —Mets501 (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose. As a (mostly) layman, there are a number of quibbles I'd like to see adressed:
Second paragragh in the Intro starts with a dangling modifier. It's not the points that are two-dimensional, it's the coordinate system.
"The Greek work, however, did not extend to a full coordinate system." I'll retract that one. Still feel a bit odd, though.
"extend" needs a direct object.
Extend is used as an intransitive verb in this context; it doesn't need a direct object.
"a negative radial distance is measured as a positive distance on the opposite ray"
This introduce the concept of "opposite" rays without it being formally defined. Even if it relatively obvious in context(especially for mathematicians), a clear definition of "opposite rays" should be given.
It should be stated earlier than it is that radians are the usual angle measures in polar coordinates.
They're both used often, just depending on context.Do you think it should be mentioned earlier the contexts in which they are used? —Mets501 (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think my beef is that the article seemingly starts by using degrees and switch to radiants (when defining the interval for conversion) before going into a mixed system. Itmight just an impression due to unfamiliarity. We never learned much about radians in class.Circeus 18:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is it pertinent to give the equation of a circle or line that is not centered on the pole (an equation that hardly makes sense to one that is not used to the system, too), but not for the rose, the spiral or the conics?
It is pertinent because in polar coordinates, circles and lines not centered around the pole happen to have simple equations (even if they may look complicated, they're relatively simple), while the other curves either don't have such an equation or don't have a relatively simple one. —Mets501 (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe separate a section to discuss formulas of curves that are not centered? Polar coordinates are clearly not very useful for curves that are not centered, and maybe that should be stated.
I think it's pretty much implied, and once we start going to deep people start to say that it should really go in a daughter article.I tried to look for a reference that says it's not useful, but I can't seem to find one, and I don't want to add information that I'm not 100% sure about without a ref. —Mets501 (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think i should be clearly linked to Imaginary unit at some point. I don't know, nor can I tell what R represents in that same section either.
Under "Modelling", is the equation given a true polar equation or actually a Spherical one? ρ has so far only been mentioned in relation with the spherical coordinate system.
Replaced ρ (which was what the ref used as r) with r. —Mets501 (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The Klaasen reference is unacceptably incomplete.
Removed.Already two other refs for the same statement. —Mets501 (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the age of the David Eugene Smith ref. Isn't there a more recent edition we could refer to? Is that particular reference strictlynecessary?
I don't see the problem with citing an old ref for history.The fact that "The term appeared in English in George Peacock's 1816 translation of Lacroix's Differential and Integral Calculus" isn't going to change. —Mets501 (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It's just that it seems foolish to request of someone who would want to look that fact up that they locate a book that has probably been out of print for over half a century.Circeus 19:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but that's where Google Books comes in :-) —Mets501 (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Does choosing a different interval influence the final coordinates when doing conversions, or does it only alter the calculations? Maybe polar coordinates for a specific examples should be given (3,4,5 would be advantageous, since it has an integer r) with both intervals?
Not sure what you mean.Any point can be represented by an infinite number of coordinates, and they are all correct (as is states in "Plotting points with polar coordinates"). —Mets501 (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no doubt about that. My concern is that there is no clear reason why one would choose one interval over the other. Is that clearer? Circeus 20:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I still don't understand your concern :-(There is no clear reason why one would chose one interval over the other in most cases; it's usually simply a question of personal preference. —Mets501 (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Under "polar equation", the variable φ is introduced, without it being clearly stated what it represent. Since it was at the beginning said that it is equivalent to θ in expressing the azimuth (and it's clearly not the case here), this can be VERY confusing. Added a comment to the intro to help with that.
What does the subscripted 0 introduced in the coordinates given under "circle" stands for?
It just refers to a constant, just like in Cartesian coordinates an arbitrary point can be denoted , an arbitrary point in polar coordinates can be denoted . —Mets501 (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The explanations under "line" are simply nonsensical jargon from my point of view. again, φ makes an apparition, but the "angle of elevation of the line" makes no sense to me. Can this number be graphically represented in a polar graph? it would certainly help. reworded that so it makes more sense now.
This poses a problem: φ is formally defined twice in the article, with completely different definitions.
Done φ is really just a letter which is used in many different ways, but I've now standardized it throughout the article to refer to an arbitrary angle. —Mets501 (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
e also appears twice, once as the eccentricity in the ellipse equation, ad then as Euler's number. The latter should be clearly stated, even if it is obvious to mathematicians because Euler's formula is being mentioned, Wikipedia is not written for mathematicians.
I'm finding myself very confused by the formulas under "Complex numbers". Do these quations represent functions or coordinates of a point z? I think the problem is that it's not clear whether "z" represents a curve or a point in the polar coordinates system. Images might (or might not, I can't tell!) greatly clarify this.
"z" represents neither a function or coordinates; it represents a complex number.Complex numbers can be represented as a point on the complex plane.I'll try to get a picture to clarify this. —Mets501 (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Then is the equation shown meant to plot as a point?Circeus 20:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The equation is just to show how to calculate z.Think of the complex plane like a number line, just as a plane; each complex number has a specific spot on the plane. —Mets501 (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
See the section now, I've added a picture which should be clearer. —Mets501 (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm skipping the entire calculus section because, frankly, it's impossible to explain calculus to the layman. I mean, you can explain what it does, but not how it does it
. No obvious ungrammaticalities there, though.
Pretty much it explains what it does by saying "To find the Cartesian slope of the tangent line to a polar curve r(θ) at any given point" use the derivative and "To find the area under a curve r(θ) on a closed interval [a, b], where 0 < b − a < 2π" use the integral. —Mets501 (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The spherical coordinates to lat/lon conversion has 2 unidentified variables (δ and l). I'm assuming these are the variable used for latitude and longitude, but I can't be sure.
Fixed. Your assumptions were right. —Mets501 (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Overall, though, the article is very well written, and I'll be more than happy to support it.Circeus 16:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Awesome!Thanks for the comments.I'm getting at fixing them now :-) —Mets501 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed this one: the lead does not "concisely reflect[s] the content of the article as a whole" at all. Only 2, maybe 3 sections are actually summarized in there.Circeus 13:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It's very hard to do that with a mathematics article like this that builds on itself.If I started to explain the calculus section, for example, in the lead, most people would just stop reading at that point thinking the entire article is too technical. —Mets501 (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I disagree with Circeus on this one: while we could add a quick mention of calculus and complex numbers, the current lead section is pretty good: it's not intimidating, it gives the basic idea and it introduces the reader to the rest of the article without over-detailing the content. Pascal.Tesson 14:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, a "quick mention" is certainly enough. And while I agree that it is "pretty good", it does not quite stand enough on its own as is. Circeus 15:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
How about adding this third paragraph to the lead:
Polar coordinates serve many purposes both inside and outside of mathematics.Complex numbers are often represented in polar form to aid calculations, and calculus can be applied to polar equations as well.The polar coordinate system is used in navigation, and polar coordinates extended into three dimensions are the basis for the earth's latitude and longitude system.The polar coordinate system can be applied anytime there is a central point or force affecting its surroundings.
That's just a rough draft, feel free to copyedit. —Mets501 (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Support now that the main weaknesses that I pointed out are resolved. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.