Talk:Witch of Agnesi/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) 23:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll do a first pass today, and will respond on Thursday to comments, but otherwise am unavailable until next Monday. That shouldn't be too much of a delay.

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.	Phrasings like Let the curve be constructed as above feel more like a math research paper than an encyclopedia article.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The "Properties" section possibly could be written in prose instead of in list form, but it's not an egregious issue.
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).	Citation #20 (citing a problem from the OED) doesn't seem like the other references; does the article need to separate footnotes from references? There's probably a simpler way to deal with it.
	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).	There is an example of the infamous "In popular culture" section here; but it serves as disambiguation for other things of this title that aren't otherwise notable, so I think that's fine.
	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.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	For the image captioned The Witch of Agnesi with labeled points, it may be pointing out that the path MP is the Witch in the caption (it's already mentioned in the prose "Construction" section). Regarding the image captioned The cross-section of a single water wave has a shape similar to the Witch of Agnesi. - is this simply by visual comparison, or is there a mathematical reason for the similarity described in reliable sources.
	7. Overall assessment.

Thanks for the review. I have made the following changes in response:

• Copyedited the start of the Equations section to be less technical.
• Removed the bullets in the Properties section.
• Formatted the OED reference like the other ones (i.e. using {{citation}} to generate Citation Style 2).
• Added the identity of the curve to the caption of the figure.
• Removed the water wave figure as it didn't correspond to anything in the text and I couldn't find a source for waves having this shape.

—David Eppstein (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Everything looks good at a quick glance, though I don't have time to do a full copy-edit pass today. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I've read through the entire article again and everything is good. Passing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)