Talk:Nearest-neighbor chain algorithm/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tessaract2 (talk · contribs) 15:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I will be assessing this article. Tessaract2 Talk 15:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * can you please expand on the problems you see in the lead, that this change was supposed to repair? Because as I see it the change introduces its own quite severe problems both with MOS:LEAD and with sourcing.
 * I disagree with removing the last two paragraphs from the lead, and putting them into the background section. The lead is supposed to be "an introduction to the article and summary of its most important contents": it should contain text (frequently unsourced) that summarizes the content that is provided in more detail and with sources later in the other sections of the article, in effect providing a mini-article that would provide a reader with the main gist of the subject. That is exactly what those two paragraphs were intended to achieve. Without them, the lead section would contain no summary of the main points of the algorithm, correctness, analysis and application sections. It would violate MOS:LEAD, part of the GA requirements. Additionally, because those two paragraphs are unsourced (because they should be, as lead summaries of later content) moving them into a non-lead section would violate our GA requirements that all parts of the article would be appropriately sourced. Accordingly, I have moved the paragraphs back. Please reconsider MOS:LEAD, and what it says about the content of the lead section in the context of this GA review. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello? Are you still there? Can you explain your reasons for thinking that the lead's summaries of later sections were "extraneous" and counter to MOS:LEAD? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)