Talk:Perfect graph/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Brachy0008 (talk · contribs) 03:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like to get a second opinion because, well, the source review is kind of overwhelming for me. (I tried reading FN 1) Brachy08 _(Talk) 03:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Brachy08 here! I will be your reviewer for this GA (because, you know, WikiCup 2024). However, I would take some time to review it (I am a math person, as a disclaimer regarding criterion 1).

Images

• All images are own work, passing 6b.

Sourcing

• Sources are reliable, passing 2b.

Tips

• Can do lots of summarization for non-mathematicians to understand.

Copyvio

• Violation unlikely (22.5%)

Comments

Thanks for taking this on! Please ping me when you have concrete improvements that need to be made to the article. Re summarization: there are quite a few short glosses of linked terms already in the article, if that's what you mean; more might be appropriate but to some extent this is limited by Good Article criterion 3b. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

You’re welcome Brachy08 _(Talk) 08:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Brachy0008 Sorry for butting in. I'm surprised that you have put the second opinion. Any reason why? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think I can handle the review. Can you take over for me please? Thank you! Brachy08 _(Talk) 04:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

If you don't want to handle the review any more, with little already here, the usual process would be to get this review page deleted so that the nomination can wait until another reviewer has the time and interest to do so. You could request to be removed as reviewer at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. If you did, it could probably be handled as a speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G7, although G6 is more common. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Brachy0008 If you passed the review to me, it's fine. However, I have some important unfinished tasks in Wikipedia, such as take control over the GAR and some old GA before they delisted (and FA as well, but not neccessarily active).

@David Eppstein I do think I may ping someone for reviewing this article, the user who reviewing your previous GA, but the user is not active based on its contribution. Just in case, does it actually considered as WP:CANVASSING? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it's not a canvassing violation, but I'd be happier putting this back into the nomination pool and letting a reviewer appear organically than pressuring someone who might not feel ready to do it into reviewing. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein I believe that putting it back into the review pool might be the best course of action. I don't think the reviewer fully finished the review and also a Source Spotcheck hasn't been provided, so I think that's the best course of action. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s why I asked for second opinion Brachy08 _(Talk) 02:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

For sure, but just as a general side note, I do agree with your assessment that the overall article could be more lay-friendly. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Please note WP:ONEDOWN. Writing for the widest possible audience is not the same as writing for a lay audience. Otherwise we would be reduced to the dumbed-down mush that one can often find in Quanta where anything technical is only vaguely alluded to by stretched analogies. Specific pointers to parts of the article that are unnecessarily technical are helpful and constructive. Vague complaints that math is hard are not. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)