Talk:Collocation method

Big cleanup needed

This article needs to be rewritten without ugly mathematica code and without those big font images. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I see the original author is still working on it and I hope he will continue to do so! I would abandon the Mathematica code and focus on the technique. JJL 14:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. The author stated on the mathematics reference desk: "I think this is my only article, Collocation polynomial,so i am not interested to become spesialist in TEX or mathmarkup. Now i am going to holiday. If someone has time and possibility to cleanup the article, please do." Effectively, we're supposed to clean up this mess. In its current state I don't think anything other than perhaps the first paragraph is worth keeping. --KSmrq^T 06:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't understand the first formula (poly = \sum …). I think only the first line is worth keeping. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Example correct?

It seems to me that the coefficients ($\beta$, $\gamma$) are not calculated correctly. What is more, the function $p(t_{0}+h)$ seems to be wrong too. Or am I wrong? 84.56.179.17 21:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I forgot to mention that I shifted the polynomial p. Hopefully, it's fixed now. Thanks very much, both for your correction and for the comment above. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Great work! I can't find any mistakes anymore. I (partly) verified it with Maple. Thanks a lot for these corrections! --84.56.157.181 14:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

selection of collocation points

The selection of collocation points is not discussed, is it not important? Pdbailey 22:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that selection of collocation points is very important. There is a function in matlab called bvp4c that according to its documentation says it uses collocation. If you are to believe the documentation, it handles internal boundaries/interfaces and discontinuities also. Hopefully someone who knows about point selection and internal boundaries can add to the article --130.102.158.15 (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Assessment of quality

I rate this article as Start quality, but not yet C quality, based on the guideline assessment criteria, shown here:

Start-class

Criteria: An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources.

More detailed criteria: The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent. The article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as BLP. Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, although enough sources are usually provided to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.

Reader's experience: Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more.

Editing suggestions: Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.

C-class

Criteria: The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.

More detailed criteria: The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style.

Reader's experience: Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.

Editing suggestions: Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems.

Pros
Specifically, I see the article's main positives as:

• enough sources are provided to establish verifiability;
• has a usable amount of good content;
• satisfies fundamental content policies, such as WP:BLP;
• has a reasonable encyclopedic style;
• organisation, grammar, spelling and writing style are all quite good.

Cons
And the article's main weaknesses as:

• still missing important content, namely selection of interpolation points (as per earlier discussion on this page);
• referencing is still inadequate.

What next?
Do I simply edit the page to change the quality shown there? The guideline says:

The quality assessments are mainly performed by members of WikiProjects, who tag talk pages of articles. These tags are then collected by a bot, which generates output …

But I don't know whether there is an active WikiProject relevant to this article (Applied Maths, perhaps?), nor do I know how to "tag" the talk page. Is it OK for an individual editor, being WP:BOLD, to simply change the assessment on the page itself? Or should I open an WP:RfC (Request for Comment) on this talk page, instead?

I'd appreciate some help with this! yoyo (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

What about Boundary Value and PDE Problems?

The page should be titled collocation methods for initial value problems, since that is all that is considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TilTech (talk • contribs) 04:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)