Talk:No-three-in-line problem/GA1

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

Reviewer: Eviolite (talk · contribs) 01:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. ev iolite  (talk)  01:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

This was a nice read. I have some notes here (I didn't think any of these were too big of a deal, but they seemed a bit awkward):
 * Lead: This might be more of a me problem, but "form a line" wasn't immediately clear; perhaps "lie on the same line" or just "are collinear" with the link would be better. The next sentence could also be clarified a bit (something like "must" instead of "would", and specifying "horizontal row").
 * Done. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Under "Small instances": in which two of the pawns attack each other in the middle four squares of the chessboardthe original source states that they must be on Q 4 (d4) and K 5 (e5), which I think is easier to understand (just saying two of them are fixed), and avoids the issue of having a reflection as a solution. Also, I am not sure if linking to each number of solutions is necessary as this problem is not relevant to the numbers themselves. A OEIS link with the sequence may also be helpful (instead of just having it in the ref).
 * Both done. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Under "general placement methods": an example might be helpful for these in terms of understandability (Make technical articles understandable).
 * Example added as an illustration. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Under "Greedy placement": but less is known about the version of the problem where all lines are consideredis this necessary or else can it be reworded? I imagine something like this is hard to get a specific reference for, and it seems implied by saying that the specific case has progress, so not a big deal but something to note.
 * Er. I guess I walked into that one. There is a specific reference, some specific progress, and more to say about how little is known for this case. It is a recent paper on which I am a coauthor, and so far only citable as a conference version (the journal version is in submission), which is why I omitted it and wrote about it only in vague terms in the article. But because you asked, I have added it to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The applications and generalizations/variations sections seem more technical than the previous sections, but this doesn't seem to be an issue looking at WP:UPFRONT and WP:ONEDOWN (I am probably around the level of one below computational geometry and found it reasonable enough to understand).

Beyond these things that might do well to be changed, the article meets all other criteria, so I am putting it on hold for now. ev iolite  (talk)  03:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, everything looks good now (I've looked over the article again and didn't find any issues on a second pass; my last bullet wasn't really a thing to fix but I see it has been addressed anyway), so happy to pass this review. ev iolite   (talk)  04:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)