Talk:Anderson function

Coefficient derivation

The only source (Detection And Identification Of Visually Obscured Targets) I could find giving the derivation of the coefficients (i.e. in terms of dot products) closely matches what I put in this article, with one exception. In the book there is a minus sign between the terms in the second coefficient. This appears to be a typo. I have verified this with my own derivation in Mathematica, as well as with numerical simulations plotting and testing both definitions. There should be no minus sign between terms for A2. However, there is an overall sign common to all coefficients that could change depending on how you define the r,v and Be vectors. Argentum2f (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The move back to mainspace

@TakuyaMurata: Certainly the article is not disqualified from mainspace for being technical, and appears to meet WP:GNG, but it needs more inline citations. For example, The total magnetic field along the line is given by [equation]. If I want to verify this equation, to which source would I go? Ovinus (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it needs more inline citations, I think that can be fixed while in mainspace. There is no reason to expect the article will get more inline citations if it is moved to the draftspace. In fact, articles are more visible in mainspace so it can be argued that the verification will be done better in mainspace. If there is some serious concern about the veracity of the article, the right course of the action is an AfD. —- Taku (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]