Talk:Widest path problem

Widest path problem has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 15, 2016. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Widest path problem appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 May 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the widest path problem forms the algorithmic basis of the Schulze method used by Wikimedia to decide the winners of multiway elections?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/May.

Wikipedia

"widest path" or "maximum capacity path" edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As far as I know, the "width" of an arc is usually called its "capacity". I recommend that this article should be moved to "maximum capacity path problem". Markus Schulze 16:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

My guess prior to looking at the actual numbers was that "bottleneck shortest path" would be a more frequently used name than the one you propose. But Google scholar finds 1000 hits for "widest path", compared to 86 for "bottleneck shortest path" and 195 for "maximum capacity path", so (if the hit count can be believed) the current name is actually a good choice. I did add your alternative to the lede, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Widest path problem/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: I am accepting this article for review :-D. Please give me at least two weeks; I have been busy lately, and I tend to be pretty thorough ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Criteria edit

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review edit

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is clear and spelling looks fine. My spell check caught that words with "re" at the beginning don't have a dash between the "re" and the word (i.e. "re-scheduled"), but its consistent and the words are typical ones that spell-checkers will miss-flag as incorrect. Passing.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The article appears to meet and use the MOS consistently throughout.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article appears to use references and reference listing according to the manual of style.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The references used in the article appear to be secondary and reliable.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The article's content appears to be verifiable and doesn't appear to contain original research.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	The article does not come back with any concerns when reviewing sources or running it against tools.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	All major aspects, including points, vertices, trees, association, connections, distance, and weight. It appears to adequately cover areas that readers would expect to find in an encyclopedia.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article stays well focused on the major aspects of the article subject and does not go off-topic.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The article does not violate NPOV or add personal analysis, commentary, or bias.	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Other than edits made by those involved with recent improvements, the article does not undergo major changes or disputes.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Images are user self-work, and do not have copyright issues.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Images are appropriately used and well captioned.	Pass

Result edit

Result	Notes
Pass	The article was a great read. Sorry it took me so long to review. I got busy, and there was quite a lot of content to review. Thanks for letting me review it. Well done! :-)

Discussion edit

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional notes edit

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Add topic

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]