Talk:Turán's brick factory problem/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 00:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it 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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

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

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Looks pretty good. Only some minor issues that may or may not require action.

1. The second paragraph of "Upper bound" could use a reference
2. "Nevertheless, it is conjectured that Zarankiewicz's and Urbanik's formula is optimal." Do we know where this conjecture comes from? Does it pre-date the disproof of their result? The article implies that it arose after special cases were proven.
3. "Although some special cases of it are known to be true" Are these remnants of the original proof, or were they independently proven? If so, do we know by whom and when?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Re #1, I'm confused. The second paragraph of that section (the one beginning "However, their proofs") has two references. Did you think that the displayed equation created a paragraph break? It doesn't. Regardless, I have added another footnote to the end of the first paragraph sourcing the construction.

Re #2, I don't know, but I suspect it was around the time of the discovery by Ringel and Kainen that Zarankiewicz's claimed proof was erroneous. The first published reference to this discovery that we have is Guy (1969). Kleitman (1970) writes "We shall refer to (4) as Zarankiewicz's conjecture"; maybe he first chose this phrase? But to say so would be original research, of course.

Re #3, this is merely a forward reference to the first two sentences of the "Lower bounds" section which detail cases for which it is known to be true, with citations to whom and when. Re "remnants": Z's proof still works for K_3,n but I'm now realizing that, while I use this in one of my recent papers [1] I neglected to mention it here. (Z's surviving proof remnant; that is. My paper is not relevant enough to mention.) Do you think I should? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I would, but it's up to you. I don't think it is necessary for GA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

All points addressed. Passing article now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)