Talk:Borromean rings/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 16:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

1. Comprehension: No major issues with comprehension.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Some minor issues might exist. See comments below. (Resolved)	Pass
(b) (MoS)	No manual of style issues were found.	Pass

2. Verifiability: The article appears to meet the requirement for verifiability.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article has inline citations and a list of references.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	References used in the article are from reliable sources	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research found.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyright issues found; earwig's brings up a few false positives.	Pass

3. Comprehensiveness: The article is comprehensive.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article covers all major aspects, one elaboration may be possible. See comments below. (Resolved)	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article is on topic without any unnecessary deviations.	Pass

4. Neutrality: The article is neutral.
Pass

Notes	Result
No issues with neutrality found.	Pass

5. Stability: The article is stable.
Pass

Notes	Result
No major changes or ongoing disputes.	Pass

6. Illustration: The article is well illustrated.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images are free to use and tagged with their appropriate copyright statuses.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Image use is proper and with suitable captions.	Pass

Comments

• Hello David Eppstein. I will be taking up the review for this nomination and will present it shortly. Hopefully my feedback would be helpful. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: Hello? It's been over a week since you promised a review. Any progress? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

David Eppstein, sorry about that. I'll complete it within the next 24 hours. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

David Eppstein, I've completed the review. The article is pretty much a good article, there are couple or so issues so I'm putting it on hold for them to be addressed or clarified. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The article appears better now, congratulations on improving another article to the status of a good article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• The PDF linked in ref 24 doesn't seem to be reachable. The sentence it is cited for, "[a]nother argument for the impossibility of circular realizations, by Helge Tverberg, uses inversive geometry", could perhaps be elaborated a bit as well?
  • Fixed the link — it needed http not https. I elaborated the sentence. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• The sentence, "[i]n knot theory, the ropelength of a knot or link measures the minimum length of a curve realizing the knot that can be thickened to a tube of radius one around the curve without intersecting itself" is a bit awkward to read. It could be split into two sentences.
  • Well, I tried, but it meant making the first of the two sentences significantly more handwavy. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• In the line, "making the Borromean rings one of at most 21 links that correspond to uniform honeycombs in this way", doesn't make more sense to mention that it is one of at least 19 links?
  • I think the information that the number is small and finite is more interesting than the information that mathematicians have found 18 others. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Stylistic suggestion; all the images are on the right, some of them could be moved left. The images are also a bit cluttered, some of them can be removed, resized or their captions modified to prevent them from crossing sections. For instance, the diagram of the non-Borromean three triangle link and the one with the Siefert surface, don't particularly seem to add much. The caption "[r]ealization with smallest known ropelength, the logo of the International Mathematical Union" could omit the first part being already mentioned in the section.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• I shortened the IMU logo caption. Putting images on the left tends to run into issues with WP:SANDWICH: with images on both left and right, on narrow screens, the

article

text

can be

squeezed into very narrow columns. Keeping everything right works better for a layout that is flexible over varied window sizes (you can try resizing your browser window to see this effect on articles with left images). The non-Borromean three triangle link is included because there are incorrect claims in the literature that it is Borromean and without being able to see what the link is, it is hard to understand whether to believe those claims. The Seifert surface is included to connect to the article text on the Martin Gardner column, which doesn't otherwise explain what a Seifert surface is. If we're going to be removing images, I think the most disposable one is the Discordian logo, so I dropped that one, and simplified some other captions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)