Talk:Ideal polyhedron/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HeartGlow30797 (talk · contribs) 04:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Note: One editor.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Note: All pictures are original work.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is my second assessment. So feel free to get a second opinion if you feel this is wrong. This is a great article, just fix the wording and you'll be golden :D.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

@HeartGlow30797: I've taken out the "intuitively" and "formally" qualifiers from the lead as unnecessary. However, the rest of your comment on criterion 1a does not really provide me any guidance on where to look for text that does not flow well. Can you provide me some more specific examples? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: It's fine. Minor edits can be fixed down the road. HeartGlow ^(talk) 06:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It sounds to me as though this matter is resolved. I came here because of the note requesting a second opinion, and I concur with, it seems, both of you, that the lead is in fact very readable: for the topic, I'd say it was surprisingly approachable, a model of good technical writing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed and in any case, while this kind of issue might be appropriate for a FA review, the GA article criteria are looking for clarity rather than exemplary style. I think the article can be promoted as is. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Si :D HeartGlow ^(talk) 10:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)