Talk:Binary search tree/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vogon101 (talk · contribs) 14:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Overall article does not currently meet GA standard - the prose needs to be clearer, especially the lead section whilst the algorithms sections are in need of re-thinking. It is a good start with a lot of useful information and I encourage WikiLinuz to continue and perhaps re-nominate in the future.


 * Thanks for your inputs.
 * 1b: The lead section doesn't include any inline citation because we usually don't include duplicate citations per WP:LEADCITE and WP:LEAD. And, I will split out the single paragraph lead into two, if that's better. Will also include a short explanation (or comments) for the pseudocode. The pseudocode by itself was descriptive, so I thought it'd be redundant.
 * 3(5): We were having a discussion over the inclusion of a link. I was just curious why it isn't helping the article, so there isn't a fight :)
 * I will work on the points regarding the lead section, 1a, and pseudocode and renominate once it's done. Thank you for the review, again! Regards, WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 16:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah cool re 1b.
 * Yeah - I think 5 is probably a "yes" I just didn't say so given the comments on 1 and 3. Good luck with the article :) Vogon101 (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it some more here are my suggestions
 * For the lead section
 * First sentence is fine but second makes no sense.
 * Add some more motivation - why would someone use this data structure?
 * Final sentence is weird on its own - either expand or remove
 * A line on the history? Also the invented date and by in the info box look unsourced to me (I might be wrong though)
 * There is some overlinking as I said, that is easy to fix
 * Operations
 * This is obviously the hardest bit to get right and I'm not 100% sure what the right level of detail is but I think my main current issue with it is that it feels like a grab bag of operations that are a bit unmotivated - perhaps expanding the first section is what's needed
 * See WikiProject_Computer_science/Manual_of_style - this has some tips. I don't think you need all the operations: we're talking about mostly the implementation of a data structure. This is a bit nebulous but in this case the core ops are probably
 * Search, insert, delete
 * Deletion is a tricky operation to understand* - it needs to be made clearer - especially the link with the diagram which is good but needs clearer linking imo
 * Add comments to pseudocode - at least for deletion linking lines/functions to parts of the diagram or the order of steps above
 * I don't know if succ, pred, height and traversal belong (happy to be disagreed with)
 * I think there needs to be a section on the implementation datatructure itself - something more explicitly practical in the definition section maybe?
 * * I remember having issues with it at uni lol
 * Feel free to ping me again if you want me to give it another look over (idk if I can review it next time but if I can happy to :) ) Vogon101 (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Please have a look and let me know if there are any remarks. I will nominate it for the GA once that's done. (Pinging you since you were interested in reviewing the article.) Thanks, WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 20:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Any interested user is welcomed to give the GA review. WikiLinuz 🍁 ( talk ) 04:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)