Talk:Binary search tree/GA3

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

Reviewer: Mhawk10 (talk · contribs) 05:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'll take a look at this article and give feedback over the next couple of days. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this one. If there are any copy edits, improvements or changes you want to be made, please let me know. I'll make the revisions ASAP. -- WikiLinuz { talk } 🍁  12:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've placed the article on-hold, per below. I'm still working through and spot-checking refs, though there are going to need to be some improvements made if this is going to become a GA. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Keep them posted, I'll incrementally make those requested changes within the standard seven days on-hold period. -- WikiLinuz { talk } 🍁  18:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * 1b - I've copy-edited the lead to include information from other sections.
 * 2c - I've added additional references for the predecessor pseudocode. The "BST-Delete" is nearly identical to that of the sourced material, and the only variant is the internal call to "TRANSPLANT", which is "Shift-Nodes" in the article.
 * 2d - I've modified the subroutine names.
 * 3a - I've rewritten the history section to include self-balancing aspects, and also copy-edited the "types" section.
 * -- WikiLinuz { talk } 🍁  04:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for the ping! I'll take another look through and give more feedback when I get a chance. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for the ping! I'll take another look through and give more feedback when I get a chance. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

A drive-by comment (re GACR 3a or maybe 4): The coverage of optimal binary search trees is currently totally inadequate. It is ungrammatical (the first noun phrase of the first sentence is missing its article). It fails to properly describe the problem (optimal in this context means in terms of average time with respect to some distribution or sequence of updates, not worst case time). It is misclassified under "self-balancing" (much of the work in this area is on static algorithms for constructing these trees, not on self-balancing trees). It fails to mention the time bounds for these static problems, or even the basic fact that these trees can be constructed in polynomial time. It fails to mention the connection to online algorithms and competitive ratios via the dynamic optimality conjecture for splay trees and greedy-ass trees and tango trees. If this is representative of the whole article I can see why this is on its third review after two previous contentious reviews — this is a level of unreadiness for GA that cosmetic edits alone won't fix. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I've taken a note of your comment on the optimal BST. But I don't think I can access Wikipedia for a day or two since I'm facing power outage for 2 days due to a major storm in Toronto area. I'm not sure when the power will be back. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61541653.amp WikiLinuz-mobile (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Stay safe! I can keep this on hold for as long as need be to make the changes. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Power is back in my neighborhood, I'll be working on the mentioned remarks starting today. -- WikiLinuz { talk } 🍁  09:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made substantial revisions to the particular section in question, shortened the body, and removed UNDUE text. As a result, I've decided to confine the article to BST. Please take a look at the current revision and let me know if you like some changes. -- WikiLinuz { talk } 🍁  05:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I will take a look through over the next couple of days. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I received a notice from Legobot on the 8th saying that the nomination would automatically fail in 7 days. It's been five days (June 13th), so it'd be great if you could look through and note any changes before auto-fail. Thanks. -- WikiLinuz { talk } 🍁  23:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'll get to that tonight. I promise it won't auto-fail you; the only way that it would fail is if I (or another reviewer) were to fail it. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've updated the table above. I'm still not seeing any mention of the history section in the lead, which for me constitutes an MOS:LEAD violation. Please remediate this and the other issues that remain. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2c: That paragraph merely states the operations within the sub-section. But I think the operations themselves are self-explanatory and don't need a secondary introduction, so I've taken them away.
 * 1b: I've copy-edited to include things from the history section in the lead (regarding attribution and invention of the self-balancing variants to address a critical issue that BST suffers from). Please let me know if you'd like something else to be summarized in the lead.
 * -- WikiLinuz { talk } 🍁  05:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Passed! Congrats on the GA. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Passed! Congrats on the GA. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)