Talk:Rook's graph

Rook's graph has been listed as one of the Mathematics good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 4, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Chess Bottom‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
Bottom	This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Hard to Understand

You can understand what the article is about (a graph used to find out where a rook can move in chess) but it contains many terms that are undefined and impossible to comprehend using context clues. Estridaldrea 21:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rook's graph/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The references already listed in the article contain additional properties of these graphs that could be used to expand the article beyond its current stub state. —David Eppstein 19:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 19:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

Passed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rook's graph/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 22:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

One comment below

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

One reference required; see below

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Comments

Looks good. Very few comments:

"chess piece" is two words
- It cannot be two separate words in this context, because the three-noun compound "chess piece tours" would be ambiguously grouped. Instead I used a hyphen: "chess-piece tours". —David Eppstein (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Access date required on fn 12
- I don't think anything in the GA rules actually requires this, and more important would have been a date and the broader work that this web page is part of. But anyway, ok, reference expanded. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  You're right. I just came off a couple of FAC source reviews and was too picky about consistency, which is not required at GA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The suggestion led to an improvement, though, and that more than following the exact requirements is more what I'm hoping to get out of the GA process. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reference required on first paragraph of "Independence"
- There was a reference on most of the paragraph. I removed the final unsourced sentence. (It is obviously true, but finding a source that says such a thing explicitly in the mathematical literature on the maze of equivalent forms of rook's graphs is difficult, and the difficulty of sourcing it suggests that maybe it is not so important.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add the mathematics portal to the portals in the See also section
- I am very much not a fan of portals. Portals are dead zombie cruft from many years ago. Stop trying to make portals not dead. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Fair enough. It seemed odd to have one but not the other. If you can add the missing reference, I will pass the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: all comments addressed (or at least responded to); please take another look. (Also for symmetry I removed the chess portal; there's not much about chess in here.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.