Talk:No-three-in-line problem/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eviolite (talk · contribs) 01:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this. eviolite (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2021 (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.	A few comments below
	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.
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.
	7. Overall assessment.

This was a nice read. I have some notes here (I didn't think any of these were too big of a deal, but they seemed a bit awkward):

Lead: This might be more of a me problem, but "form a line" wasn't immediately clear; perhaps "lie on the same line" or just "are collinear" with the link would be better. The next sentence could also be clarified a bit (something like "must" instead of "would", and specifying "horizontal row").
- Done. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Under "Small instances": in which two of the pawns attack each other in the middle four squares of the chessboard—the original source states that they must be on Q 4 (d4) and K 5 (e5), which I think is easier to understand (just saying two of them are fixed), and avoids the issue of having a reflection as a solution. Also, I am not sure if linking to each number of solutions is necessary as this problem is not relevant to the numbers themselves. A {{OEIS}} link with the sequence may also be helpful (instead of just having it in the ref).
- Both done. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Under "general placement methods": an example might be helpful for these in terms of understandability (Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable#Add a concrete example).
- Example added as an illustration. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Under "Greedy placement": but less is known about the version of the problem where all lines are considered—is this necessary or else can it be reworded? I imagine something like this is hard to get a specific reference for, and it seems implied by saying that the specific case has progress, so not a big deal but something to note.
- Er. I guess I walked into that one. There is a specific reference, some specific progress, and more to say about how little is known for this case. It is a recent paper on which I am a coauthor, and so far only citable as a conference version (the journal version is in submission), which is why I omitted it and wrote about it only in vague terms in the article. But because you asked, I have added it to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The applications and generalizations/variations sections seem more technical than the previous sections, but this doesn't seem to be an issue looking at WP:UPFRONT and WP:ONEDOWN (I am probably around the level of one below computational geometry and found it reasonable enough to understand).

Beyond these things that might do well to be changed, the article meets all other criteria, so I am putting it on hold for now. eviolite (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Thanks, everything looks good now (I've looked over the article again and didn't find any issues on a second pass; my last bullet wasn't really a thing to fix but I see it has been addressed anyway), so happy to pass this review. eviolite (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]