Talk:Polygonalization/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 19:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The prose standard is excellent, and the article satisfies the required sections of MoS. One minor note for clarity: in "Existence", "requiring no three to be in a line is too strong of an assumption" would be more clear with something like "unnecessarily strong" rather than "too strong".
 * Ok, done. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * The article has a reference section with citations to published sources. I'm not seeing signs of plagiarism from online sources. The sources I could access supported the claims they were cited from. Only one concern: in "Counting", the phrase "at most $$54.6^n$$ polygonalizations" seems to use a rounded figure (the abstract of the cited article says $$54.543^n$$); I think it would be better to follow the authors and round where they did.
 * The intent was to provide the same number of significant figures (three) for both the lower bound and the upper bound. The base of the exponential has been rounded up from 54.543 because rounding up an upper bound in this way preserves correctness while rounding down might not. I do not believe that the upper bound is likely to be close to the actual maximum number of polygonalizations (it is merely the best we can currently prove) so reporting it in greater precision would not be more informative. As evidence that the reference authors themselves don't think that there is some magic reason to round to five digits, see where they rounded to four instead. Another online reference for this problem  rounds to two digits. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I'm not thinking of any other major aspects of the topic that the article doesn't currently address. It also maintains suitable focus and doesn't wander into trivia or tangentially related material.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article maintains a suitably neutral perspective, not e.g. overblowing the significance of the topic r taking sides on proposed solutions to unsolved problems.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The article is stable and has not changed significantly since its creation last year.
 * 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):
 * The article is illustrated with clear, relevant images, which have suitable licenses. The first image is an excellent article starter, but the second (the "unflippable polygon") could be improved. Its current placement at the top of the body comes far before the portion of the article ("Generation") that discusses "flipping" pairs of edges to generate new polygons from existing ones, making the purpose of the image unclear where it appears. Indeed, the caption is currently the only place in the article where the word "unflippable" appears, so that I even failed to find an explanation when I searched for that term. This image should be moved to a place in the body where its relevance is more clear, and some elaboration in the caption would probably help, too.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * An interesting article, and well written! I have only a few small bits of feedback to offer here; it's very close to the standard. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC) I'm satisfied that it meets the standard and am approving it. Good work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)