Talk:Vojtěch Jarník/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 18:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one. I should have a first full review up in the next day or two. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2019 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The article is written at a good prose standard and complies with all the indicated sections of MoS. One small note: I'm inclined to think that a European topic should probably express dates in DMY format rather than MD,Y format, but I don't think MoS establishes a firm rule here, since the topic isn't associated with an English-speaking country. If you prefer to keep it in the American style, that should be fine for GA.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
The article has a reference section and shows no signs of plagiarism from online sources. The broad outline of the article and almost all of the specific claims appear to be supported by the citations given. A couple of small issues and a note:

In the second paragraph of "Number Theory", the Redmond source doesn't appear to limit Jarník's theorem to convex curves but allows it to apply to any rectifiable simple closed curve in the plane. Am I missing a place where the result is limited to convex curves? Also, to reflect the absolute value in the book's formula, perhaps we should change the article text from "the difference between" to "the positive difference between"? Finally, just a reader's comment: as a physical scientist, my eye doesn't like claims that compare lengths to areas to dimensionless numbers, but I gather that this sort of thing is commonplace in number theory, and upon consideration it appears that the theorem does indeed hold regardless of the unit scale. How odd! I suppose it's something to do with the fact that the rate of change of the area is a length?
You appear to be correct about it not requiring convexity. I removed that assumption, and added some nontechnical wording corresponding to the requirement that it be rectifiable instead. I also used absolute difference in place of your suggestion of positive difference, since that is the more common term for that concept. As for the dimensional analysis: the conversion between units of length and a dimensionless number comes from the spacing of the integer grid. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That all looks great. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article's coverage is appropriately broad, including the subject's basic biography and academic career details, a compact but thorough summary of his fields of research and findings, examples of recognitions and awards he received, and a limited bibliography of his notable publications. The article also remains focused on the subject and doesn't wander into tangential topics.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The article supports its claims regarding the subject's notability and impact with authoritative citations and maintains an appropriately neutral tone toward the subject.
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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
I wish we had at least one free image of the man, though there seem to be none on Commons.
I don't know of any free images, but I added a fair use one. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A diagram relevant to his work would also help; would it be appropriate to add e.g. File:PrimAlgDemo.gif to illustrate his namesake minimum spanning tree algorithm?
Thanks for the suggestion — I added that image. I can also dig up a free image of a convex curve through many lattice points; I have some of those on my blog that I can use. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The portrait and illustrations enhance the article significantly, thanks! It looks like the bots think the fair-use portrait is too high-resolution, but the notice seems to say that a bot will automatically downsample it to an appropriate size in the next day, so we can probably just let that happen. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems odd to me that we have to downsample when the full-res image is used on the Russian Wikipedia, but whatever. The downsampled image should still be around 265px wide, good enough for this use. I agree, this looks like it will just happen automatically. (There is a way to object to the downsizing and flag it to not happen but I don't see a need to use that in this case.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
An interesting and well-written article! A couple of small questions to address, and it should be able to meet the GA standard. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bryanrutherford0: Ok, I think I've handled all your questions now. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, thank you for your responsive editing! This biography is approved as a Good Article! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! And thanks for the review. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]