Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Johnson solids/archive1

List of Johnson solids

 * Nominator(s): Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

This is my first time nominating FL, and I hope this meets all the criteria of FL. One reason I am nominating this for the featured list is because it is a complete list of Johnson solids, along with the surface area and volume, as well as the symmetry. As for the background for someone who does not comprehend mathematics, especially in geometry, the Johnson solids were in the list proposed by Norman Johnson, and he conjectured that there were no other solids, after which was proved by Victor Zalgaller. I think I can give three examples for the exhibition:

There are actually 92 of them, but I would not exhibit them a lot here. I hope this could be the next FL of WP:WPM, and it could be the first FL of sister WikiProject, WP:3TOPE. Anyone, including someone interested in it, can review this. Many thanks for the comments and suggestions. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Remsense
Claiming a spot here, since I think it's a great article and I still want to properly go through it like I promised. Remsense 诉  07:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Sgubaldo

 * Prose
 * "It is also includes the number of vertices, edges, and faces, symmetry, surface area...." ==> "It also includes the number of vertices, edges, and faces, symmetry, surface area..."
 * Removed an ungrammatical word. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "attaching prism or antiprism to those is known as elongation or gyroelongation, respectively." ==> "attaching a prism or antiprism to those is known as elongation or gyroelongation respectively."
 * I thought a comma would be supposed to be, but oh well, removed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sgubaldo. I think I have complete all of the suggestions above. Let me know if there are any remaining missing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sourcing – This is not a source review, just some things I spotted
 * For "Daniele Barbaro’s Perspective of 1568", the author's first name is 'Cosimo' not 'Cosino'.
 * Renamed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Cromwell's Polyhedra book is missing an ISBN, which you can find here.
 * Added. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Zalgaller's source is missing an ISBN and the publisher looks wrong. I found this page on Springer
 * Nice. Added. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For "Group Theory in Solid State Physics and Photonics: Problem Solving with Mathematica" and "2D and 3D Image Analysis by Moments", the publisher is called 'John Wiley & Sons', not 'John & Sons Wiley'.
 * My mistake. Renamed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikilink Canadian Journal of Mathematics.
 * Wikilinked. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've been told you can either wikilink publishers or leave them unlinked as long as you're consistent. You've wikilinked Cambridge University Press but none of the others; it would be good if you could either delink Cambridge University Press or wikilink John Wiley & Sons, Springer, Academic Press, American Mathematical Society and Dover Publications.
 * Wikilinked all, just in case. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Some of the authors have their full first name and some only have their initial; I believe this can be done in one way or the other but it has to be consistent.
 * @Sgubaldo. Sorry, I do not understand here. Are you saying the author's initial name should be either abbreviated or fully named in all of the sources? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. For example, have all of them either lik "Cromwell, Peter R." or like "Diudea, M. V." Sgubaldo (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, to think about the efficient way, it would be best to abbreviate at all, rather than finding out their first full names. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Nice one, I'll have a full read-through later. In the meantime, I've added some urls/other missing author links myself. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've gone through and made some copyedits. Feel free to revert an edit you're not happy with it.
 * Here are some more commments:
 * The passage
 * These solids may be used to construct another polyhedron with the same properties, a process known as augmentation; attaching a prism or antiprism to those is known as elongation or gyroelongation respectively. Some others are constructed by diminishment, the removal of those from the component of polyhedra, or by snubification, a construction by cutting loose the edges, lifting the faces and rotate in certain angle, after which adding the equilateral triangles between them.
 * is a bit confusing to read because I'm not sure what 'those' is referring to. I'm reading it as you attach the prism/antiprism to any of the first six Johnson solids, but it's not very clear.
 * Is defining area and volume necessary? I'm specifically taking about the sentences "An area is a two-dimensional measurement calculated by the product of length and width, and the surface area is the overall area of all faces of polyhedra that is measured by summing all of them. A volume is a measurement of the region in three-dimensional space." I understand you have to consider WP:TECHNICAL but perhaps you could just include how the volume and surface area are calculated for a polyhedron and remove the definitions themselves.
 * Is the sentence "one case that preserves the symmetry by one full rotation and one reflection horizontal plane is $$ C_{1h} $$ of order 2, or simply denoted as $$ C_s $$" also necessary? You already explain the $$ C_{nh} $$ group and this is just one example
 * Sgubaldo (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Re "defining area and volume necessary": This is on purpose to make readers (for non-mathematicians, students, or anyone who is interested in it) recap the meaning of area and volume. If it does not exist, readers may search them on the previous wikilinked. I am aware that one problem here is our articles is somewhat technical, making readers even much more confused. Take an example of Surface area, stating that "a measure of the total area that the surface of the object occupies". This is not only to help readers to understand the definition, but rather to give the meaning of the object specifically. Here, I wrote the surface area of a polyhedron specifically as the total area of all polygona faces. So to put it plain, this is intended to summarize them specifically about the polyhedron's characteristics. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My concern was more whether the sentences "An area is a two-dimensional measurement calculated by the product of length and width" and "A volume is a measurement of the region in three-dimensional space." were necessary, but if you think they are per WP:TECHNICAL, then I'm fine with their inclusion. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dedhert.Jr Anyways, final comment on this part: "The volume of a polyhedron is determined by involving its base and height (as in pyramids and prisms), slicing it off into pieces after which summing them up...." – I'm slightly unsure as to what 'involving its base and height' means here. Could you clarify? Sgubaldo (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is just like saying that volume of a prism and pyramid is the product of height and its base, with an exception that pyramid is one-third of it. The inside bracket is meant to show the merely examples. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dedhert.Jr, could you rewrite the sentence a little to clarify that? I think it's still hard to understand in its current state. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to say that volume of a polyhedron can be calculated in different way. Take examples as in the prism and the pyramid. The volume of a prism is the product of base and height $$ bh $$. The volume of a pyramid is one-third of the product of base and height $ \frac{1}{3}bh $ . From all of these examples, their calculation only involves the base $$ b $$ and height $$ h $$. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dedhert.Jr. Thank you, I understand now; these will be my final comments then, after which I can support.
 * What do you think about tweaking the relevant part of the sentence mentioned above to something like: "The volume of a polyhedron may be ascertained in different ways: either by decomposing it into smaller pieces, such as pyramids and prisms, calculating the volume of each component, and then computing their sum, or......"
 * When you say "meaning their construction does not involve both Archimedean and Platonic solids", is that intending that it doesn't involve both Archimedean and Platonic solids at the same time or that it involves neither of the two. If it's the former, then it's fine. If it's the latter, I think it should be changed to "meaning their construction does not involve neither Archimedean nor Platonic solids"
 * Sgubaldo (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Re "tweaking": What? This means something different. My interpretation is that you pointed the polyhedrons such as pyramids and prisms can be defined their volume by decomposing it into smaller pieces.
 * What I meant about those facts is that every polyhedron's volume is different to finding them. One example that I already explained is involving the produvt of base and height. However, not all the volume of polyhedrons can be done in that way. We can see an example of Triaugmented triangular prism in which constructed from a triangular prism by attaching three equilateral square pyramids onto its square faces. To find its volume, we need to slice it off into a triangular prism and three equilateral square pyramids again. Finding their volume, and then add up the volume again, and the volume of a triaugmanted triangular prism is total of those. But this method is not working for sphenomegacorona, and the alternative way is by using root of polynomial, as described in OEIS. That is what I meant also in the previous copyedit. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Re "elementar": The definition by not involving Platonic and Archimedean solids was copyedited from the previous meaning in several articles of Johnson solids. However, Cromwell and Johnson gives different meaning, so I'm going to copyedited the rest of them. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sgubaldo Update. This was already discussed after I changing the definition; you can see my talk page. Feel free to ask. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel really silly, I was misreading the sentence about finding the volume and couldn't see there were three different methods. The changes to the definition look good. There were a couple of minor prose issues I had, but to not enter a WP:FIXLOOP, I tried making the changes myself. Please do check and revert if you disagree with anything.
 * Support promotion, I hope this becomes one of the few mathematics-related FLs. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Re "$$ C_{1h} = C_s $$": Not expert in symmetry here. As far as I'm concerned, the symmetry $$ C_{1h} $$ is explicitly stated in the source, consisting of identity and mirror plane, and this can be denoted as $$ C_s $$. Is there something wrong? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert either. What I was trying to say was that you explain the symmetry group $$ C_{nh} $$ with the sentence "The symmetry group $$ C_{nh} $$ of order $$ 2n $$ preserves the symmetry by rotation around the axis of symmetry and reflection on horizontal plane", but then also go into specific detail about $$ C_{1h} = C_s $$, which seems to be a specific case of $$ C_{nh} $$. My concern was whether this was necessary, since no other examples of a symmetry group are explored in the article. Is it because it needs to be shown that $$ C_{1h} $$ is denoted as $$ C_s $$? Sgubaldo. It is a mirror symmetry, merely. (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Our articles says it is involution group symmetry, as it is shown in List of spherical symmetry groups,. The notation is in Schoenflies notation. If it's possible, let me ask this in WP:WPM to gain more precise meaning ensurely. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I'm happy with this part now. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Re "these solids". It means that the first six Johnson solids can be used to construct more new Johnson solids by attaching the uniform polyhedrons (as it is included in the article), and those constructions are already mentioned above, with some exceptions that snubification does not need them basically. Some of the Johnson solids cannot be constructed without them. I think I will fix this one, but I have to be careful my writing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I've made some minor edits here too and I'm happy with this part now. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

 * Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g.  becomes  . If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
 * Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g.  becomes  . If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
 * Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. -- Pres N  21:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Implemented them all. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Reminder
This is already 20 days, almost three weeks, and there are no responses from the reviewer. Pinging @Sgubaldo, @Remsense, and @PresN. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I didn't ping you with my last reply, but I supported above. Sgubaldo (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will have remarks by the end of tomorrow, apologies. Remsense  诉  14:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense: Just pinging to see if you're still planning to follow up with a review. Ideally, a source review would be very much appreciated if you're at all familiar with the subject matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sending a ping again to @Remsense. Please at least just let us know if you're no longer interested in doing a review. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll withdraw, as I don't think I'm presently qualified for this. Deep apologies. Remsense  诉  15:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense. That's fine. I merely waited for someone reviewed the article; otherwise, the nomination would start over again because of inactivity by reviewers. @Hey man im josh. Do you mind if you can review the article? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this isn't an area I'd be comfortable reviewing. One thing not to clear me, at a passing glance, is what verifies what's actually in the table? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hey man im josh. Sorry, I can't comperehend your words. Can you clarify? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Nevermind @Dedhert.Jr. I was asking what verifies the formulas in the last column, but I missed that there was a reference in the column header. Though, if you were referring to the first part of the comment, I'm not comfortable enough with the subject matter to review it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hey man im josh Well, I'm now worried that this nomination will expire. I am tired of repeating nominations in the same situation. I already saw this when I looked up the FAC. Should I ping members on related topics WikiProject, or are there alternative ways? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to share your nomination at a relevant WikiProject, but we're pretty patient with nominations. There are currently 8 people nominations that are older than yours and I promoted one yesterday that was over two months old. For a source review, I think someone from a relevant WikiProject would be excellent. Perhaps a message asking if anybody is a subject matter expert and could provide a source review at the nomination? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hey man im josh That's a good idea. Thank you. But how long does the nomination will be expired? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no hard established hard deadline. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay then. I have invited the members, but I doubt that some of them will ignore it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)