Talk:Midsphere/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 05:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

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

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 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):
 * Earwig just finds a couple mirrors
 * 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 non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * An impressively accessible math article. Just a couple minor suggestions.
 * 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 non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * An impressively accessible math article. Just a couple minor suggestions.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * An impressively accessible math article. Just a couple minor suggestions.
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * An impressively accessible math article. Just a couple minor suggestions.
 * Pass/fail:
 * An impressively accessible math article. Just a couple minor suggestions.
 * An impressively accessible math article. Just a couple minor suggestions.

Comments

 * Add alt text for images
 * I am very sympathetic to the goal of accessibility, but achieving this through alt text is not a mechanical requirement in general, nor in the GA criteria. MOS:ALT does ask that the combination of captions plus alt text adequately describe the image. I have heard users of screen readers complain that alt text that adds no useful information to the caption can be more annoying clutter than useful. I think that adding, for instance, "A polyhedron and its midsphere" to an image for which this is the first text in the caption would be merely redundant, and that describing irrelevant details of the image would not be helpful for readers of any kind. So could you please be more specific about what information you think could be conveyed through alt text that is not already conveyed by the caption, and that should be so conveyed? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do understand your point here. I think a description of the geometry itself would be useful, especially for less technical readers. Perhaps something like this? An irregular polyhedron with several triangular and quadrilateral faces visible. A blue sphere of approximately the same size is tangent to each edge of the polyhedron. The portions of the sphere outside the polyhedron form circular caps on each face. Several red circles on the face of the sphere connect points where it is tangent to the edges. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The cube/octahedron dual image would be better placed under the Properties heading.
 * Ok, moved. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be great to give the values for an example Crelle's tetrahedron - I think that would make the generation easier to grasp.
 * Under "edge lengths"? Ok, I added an example. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not required to meet the GA criteria, but images illustrating a Crelle's tetrahedron and the relation between an example polyhedral graph and its canonical polyhedron would be excellent to add at some point.
 * I added an image of four tangent spheres, and a (newly uploaded) image of the planar circle packing generated by stereographic projection of horizon spheres. The four-sphere Crelle tetrahedron, especially, could be better, but I'm not currently set up for easy generation of new 3d images and I didn't find anything better already on commons. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Source check

 * 2: passed
 * 5: passed
 * 10: offline source, so
 * 11: passed
 * 17: passed
 * 18: passing on good faith - we're at the limits of my mathematical understanding here.

I think I've responded to everything; please take another look. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @David Eppstein: Just wanted to see your thoughts on my suggested type of alt text. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Mostly harmless, but a little inaccurate. I added different alt text to the images. I'm not convinced that it is going to add any useful information for people using screen-readers, though, rather than just cluttering the text with unhelpful descriptions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. Passing now, great work once again. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)