Talk:Sylvester–Gallai theorem/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: HeartGlow30797 (talk · contribs) 04:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Excellent lead.
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: Little activity in a month.
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 third assessment. So feel free to get a second opinion if you feel this is wrong. Extensive rephrasing needs to be done.

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'm sorry but your complaint about references is totally off-base. First of all, the GA rules do not require a specific style, and explicitly (footnote 4) do not even require a consistent style, they merely require that references obey MOS:NOTES, which asks for a reference section that can contain references of many different types (including the type used here). Second of all, going beyond the GA rules, Wikipedia's other guidelines for how to format references also do not ask for references to follow any specific style, but merely that they follow a consistent style; see WP:CITEVAR. And third of all, the style used for this article (short footnotes with a separate bibliography of full references, and Citation Style 2 for the full references) is one of the explicitly-recommended options for formatting references on Wikipedia; see WP:CITESHORT. Please amend your review to take this into account. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing, your points on 1a also look rather poorly based. You did notice that there were quote marks around "simply the best", right? That's a direct quote from a reference, not text written newly for the article. And the clarification after "In 1941" pointing out that it was before Gallai's proof is definitely needed, because it's a matter of priority: Melchior proved the theorem before Gallai, the person after whose proof the theorem was named. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re 1b, I have no idea what "MoS needs work. Refer to names as without a hyperlink when linking a proof." is supposed to mean. Working on improvements to the Manual of Style is far beyond the scope of this Good Article review. And I can't parse the sentence beginning "Refer to..." at all. Is it grammatical? Is it intended to be telling me something the article does that it shouldn't? Is it intended to be telling me something the article does when it should? Are you objecting to my use of linked inline text for in-text references like "Aigner and Ziegler (2018)"? If so see above about WP:CITEVAR (that is part of the consistent citation style of the article). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Hello, I am so very new to this, and am trying my hand at looking at the content of the article, please forgive me D:. I have reevaluated your points on the references, however your points of 1a. I did not know that was a quote, however feel like it does not fit in with the factual style we are going for here on Wikipedia. I will concede on your second point, however, I do still feel some cleaning up still needs to be done. HeartGlow ^(talk) 05:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have we resolved all the issues? HeartGlow ^(talk) 05:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I can not leave in good conscious knowing I poorly reviewed your article. If there is anything you need me to do, please request it now. HeartGlow ^(talk) 05:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "factual style we aim for on Wikipedia" does not mean that anything that smacks of opinion should be eliminated; it means merely that, when an opinion is included, it should be clearly stated whose opinion it is. In fact, I personally disagree with Aigner and Ziegler that Kelly's proof is the best (I prefer Melchior's) but they said it, as the authors of the definitive book on elegance in mathematical proof I think their opinion is highly relevant, and it is properly attributed. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re summarizing the proofs: Is this the sort of thing you were asking for? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HeartGlow30797: Six days have passed since David updated the proofs section: do you still have concerns. My assessment is that the article comfortably reaches the GA criteria for parts 1 and 3. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Si HeartGlow ^(talk) 10:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]