Talk:Well-covered graph/GA1

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

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 18:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Starting review RoySmith (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead

 * "undirected" is not mentioned in the body.
 * "Well-covered graphs were defined and first studied by Michael D. Plummer in 1970." not in the body
 * found that.
 * Try to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE in "minimal vertex cover"
 * Ok, rewrote lead to include brief glosses of vertex cover and minimal, with links better separated, and added "undirected" and a link to the first instance in the article body. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Definitions

 * You start out by defining "vertex cover". Is that a synonym for what Plummer calls a "point cover"?   Likewise, I assume what you call an "edge" is what Plummer calls a "line"?  Assuming that's correct, it would be useful to include glossary to help people follow the disparity in nomenclature.
 * Point and line are obsolete terminology. I don't think we should use them in the article but I added a note about this in the footnotes. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You list Plummer 1970 twice under Notes.
 * Because of the new note on the first listing, this is still true, but at least now the footnotes are not identical. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Bipartiteness, very well covered graphs, and girth

 * You have very well covered graph in bold; did you intend that should redirect to this article?
 * Redirect created. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Favaron (1982) defines a very well covered graph" It's not clear if Favaron is the first person to do so or if he's just reviewing the work of previous authors.
 * He was the first. If he was just reviewing, it wouldn't make sense to name-drop him in the article text. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "in bipartite graph without isolated vertices" Either "in a bipartite graph...", or "in bipartite graphs..."?
 * Added "a". —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Regularity and planarity
That's all I can find. RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Y-Δ transform should link to YΔ- and ΔY-transformation?
 * Yes. The graph-theoretic article was created only very recently, and not all the old links from other articles have caught up. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)