Talk:Euclidean distance/GA1

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

Reviewer: Elliot321 (talk · contribs) 21:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll review this article. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 21:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

"In mathematics, the Euclidean distance between two points in Euclidean space is a number, the length of a line segment between the two points." - "a number," is somewhat redundant and breaks up the phrase.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Some issues.

"It can be calculated from the Cartesian coordinates of the points using the Pythagorean theorem, and is occasionally called the Pythagorean distance. These names come from the ancient Greek mathematicians Euclid and Pythagoras, but Euclid did not represent distances as numbers, and the connection from the Pythagorean theorem to distance calculation was not made until the 17th century."

is just incredibly unsatisfying writing. Something like

"It can be calculated from the Cartesian coordinates of the points using the Pythagorean theorem, therefore occasionally being called the Pythagorean distance. These names come from the ancient Greek mathematicians Euclid and Pythagoras, though Euclid did not represent distances as numbers, and the connection from the Pythagorean theorem to distance calculation was not made until the 17th century."

"Other objects than points" heading would be better as "Objects other than points" or "Non-point objects"
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * A bit ambiguous with the issues I outlined in 1a, but there's no need to duplicate them here.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The illustrations are appropriate and sufficient for the article.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Nice nomination - just a few grammatical issues, really. If those are fixed within seven days, I'll pass the article. The referencing is good, so is the topical coverage. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 21:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The illustrations are appropriate and sufficient for the article.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Nice nomination - just a few grammatical issues, really. If those are fixed within seven days, I'll pass the article. The referencing is good, so is the topical coverage. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 21:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Nice nomination - just a few grammatical issues, really. If those are fixed within seven days, I'll pass the article. The referencing is good, so is the topical coverage. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 21:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, the requested minor wording changes have been done. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks, passing. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)