Talk:Antiparallelogram/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Elli (talk · contribs) 14:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Initial comments
Article is in decent shape. Going to go section-by-section with the review here. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 14:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Geometric properties
I think the De Villiers reference, based off of the title, might be usable for the second paragraph? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 14:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * First paragraph is appropriately sourced.
 * the second part of this sentence isn't in the source, but I guess can be reasonably inferred from the definition of a Varignon parallelogram. Would be better to have a reference here though.
 * Everything else in the second paragraph is fine.
 * Can't access the De Villiers or Demaine & O'Rourke references, but the paragraph is OK assuming those verify the content.
 * An online version of De Villiers can be found by searching for its title; I haven't linked it because I'm not entirely convinced that its not a pirated copy that would fail WP:ELNEVER. But as you say, he does discuss the degeneracy of the Varignon parallelogram, stating that it happens for crossed quads of signed area zero. So it does make sense to add that as a reference to the earlier line; I have done so. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, looks good. Continuing (sorry with how long this took, I'm not the best at remembering when I do GA reviews) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

In polyhedra

 * Assuming good faith on the sources, no issues. Images are appropriate but I might also add the reference to the caption, since it doesn't seem like the captions of the second and third images are verified in the prose?

Four-bar linkages

 * Page numbers would be pretty useful for Abbott 2008. Not a huge issue though.
 * Most of the sources here aren't linked (which is fine); the ones I could check verified the content so I'm comfortable assuming good faith on the others.

Gear design

 * No issues here.

Celestial mechanics

 * No issues here.

Lead

 * Accurately summarizes the article. I might swap the second and third paragraphs to correspond with how the articles is ordered but that's not a big deal and I can also see the benefits to listing the applications first, too.

Overall

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Illustrated with relevant, free images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * There's a few suggestions of improvements in this review but I don't find them sufficiently problematic to hold up passing the article. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Illustrated with relevant, free images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * There's a few suggestions of improvements in this review but I don't find them sufficiently problematic to hold up passing the article. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)