Talk:Malfatti circles/GA1

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Well, what a nicely constructed article on an interesting little historical topic, a model of technical clarity.

I have very little reason not to pass the article immediately but I'd like to mention a couple of things.


 * In the History, you mention numerous earlier works cited by later authors. In a way it would be nice to have all of these cited directly (and perhaps many of the older works are now available on various web archives?) but it's not a requirement.


 * In the References, the works by Andreescu, Cajori, Dorrie, and Melissen are not used anywhere. In theory these should be moved to a Further Reading or similar section.
 * It is untrue that Cajori and Melissen were unused, but I rewrote those citations using harv templates to make their citations more visible to reference-checking scripts. Andreescu and Dorrie are now in a separate section. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I was just reporting the opinion of the harv-checking tool.


 * A diagram of the Eves stack of optimal circles in a very sharp isosceles triangle might be good to have, too. I might even draw one...
 * I see you did this before I could find time to put any effort into it. Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The Ajima–Malfatti points section mentions points D, E, F and names the vertices, but these labels are not shown on the accompanying diagram.


 * The second Ajima-Malfatti point and the Yff-Malfatti point could also be illustrated, and (I report) these are not easy to visualise without sketching.


 * By the way, the Terquem link to numdam.org doesn't seem to work.
 * Combination of some reference formatting software that autoconverted http to https and numdam only allowing http. Sorry about that. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Summary
Many thanks for adding all those citations. The article is now certainly up to the required standard, and I think improved by the recent changes. I hope you'll spare the time to review one or two articles on the GA nominations list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've been trying to maintain an informal 2-to-1 QPQ before each nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)