Talk:Simple polygon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dedhert.Jr (talk · contribs) 04:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest. I'm trying to avoid reviewing this article, but I have no choice but to do so. If I'm not actively reviewing this article due to up to my neck in real life, I may need a second opinion to assist me. Anyway, at least let me try.

I see that @David Eppstein and @Jacobolus are the main writers of this article, so I think this could be counted as two users nominating the article. I'll begin reviewing this article now.

Lead: Just an option question. Is it possible to write at least three paragraphs? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. It has four paragraphs. Four is "at least three". —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Oh. Okay, I thought three paragraphs is enough to describe the whole article. That doesn't matter anyway. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definition: It doesn't mention the word "closed curve" in the source. Is it related, or maybe I should probably need to understand the meaning of closed curve first? (GACR2) In the second paragraph, why do you need the plural word for "vertex" if our article Vertex (geometry) could have just mentioned it? Are the words "exactly" and "indeed" in the second and third paragraph, respectively, supposed to be avoided under WP:EDITORIAL? (GACR1b) In the second paragraph, if the words phrase "some sources", should you cite them in at least two or more sources? Presumably, you forgot the link in the last citation in the second paragraph [1]. The source in the fourth paragraph didn't mention anything about the diagonal. GACR2) Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I added another source for the "closed curve" definition; Preparata and Shamos give a different but equivalent definition. Why "vertices": as Jacobolus says below, because we use the plural frequently, it is not a standard way to form a plural, it doesn't take long to say what the plural is, and this is often a point of confusion (I often hear students back-form the singular to the incorrect "verticee"). "Exactly" disambiguates the number "two": it means the number must be two, no more, no less. It is not an editorialization; it is a clarification. But in some rewording that sentence is now gone. "Indeed" is again, not an editorialization, but rather a connecting word, emphasizing the relevance of the special case of polygons to the full Jordan curve theorem. I didn't forget the link in the reference; I used an offline copy of the reference rather than finding it from a link. The link you supplied goes to the wrong edition of the book. I added a doi (not a url) for the correct edition. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I do think that I may have misunderstood, but thanks for clarifying anyway. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Properties: You may forget to put the link in the citation in the first paragraph, again [2] (hopefully this is the right one). Also, the phrase Every simple polygon can be partitioned into interior-disjoint triangles by a subset of its diagonals. Is it possible to find the link for interior-disjoint here, as I do not understand the meaning of these mathematical terms? (GACR1a) Do you have an illustration for the ear and mouth of a simple polygon, or maybe you could exploit the image of a somewhat called polygonal triangulation by expanding captions to provide both second and third paragraphs? (GACR6) Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link added. Changed "interior-disjoint" to be "non-overlapping" to be less technical. The illustration is already there in the definitions section. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special cases: No problems here. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Computational problems: Can we just mathfying the related-mathematical-symbols and -letter, instead of writing in HTML by adding more prime marks or apostrophes, just for consistency? Also, the same reason for the weasel word again in the awkward last sentence (GACR1b). Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Math converted and sentence reworded. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related construction: The section has some short paragraphs. For the last paragraph, can you summarize up what the open problem says? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraphs are short because they each point to an article on a related topic, and the detail on those topics can be found at the linked articles. It would not make sense to merge them because they are on different topics. Here's a summary of the open problem, copied from the first few words of the sentence: "The computational complexity of reconstructing a polygon that has a given graph as its visibility graph". We don't know what that problem's complexity is. The open problem is to find out the complexity of reconstructing polygons from visibility graphs. There isn't really anything more to add summarizing the problem than what is already there. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder if you can put most of the see-also links in every section of the article, which may be helpful for expansion, or whatever it is. The article has met six criteria good article: It is neutral (GACR4) and stable, although we have one [3], maybe? (GACR5) Weirdly, the copyvio mentions it has the similarity of words comparing the 86% in group google, and over 8% in AMS. [4] Anyway, if you have any questions, or if you have completed them, please let me know. Good luck! Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 86% similarity is from somebody copy-pasting our article and some other stuff dated December 28, 2023, a few days ago. That is, they copied from us, rather than vice versa. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. At least this could not be considered as WP:COPYVIO, so I will not fail this article. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AMS one (a web column called "Are Precise Definitions a Good Idea?") is entirely based on the occurrence in both of generic phrases such as "the set of points in a plane", "the interior of the polygon", "the vertices of a simple polygon", and "the same is true for". –jacobolus (t) 17:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say @David Eppstein was the main author here. My main contribution was to pull pictures in from other places to liven things up a bit, and then make a couple new basic illustrations. (If you see anything else that seems like it needs a picture, feel free to ask.) Do you have an illustration for the ear and mouth of a simple polygon, – scroll up a bit, this is one of the parts illustrated in the figure in the "Definitions" section. –jacobolus (t) 16:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacobolus Thank you. I didn't notice that the image is also describing the ear and mouth as well. Maybe we can explain what are the ear and mouth, or maybe we could replace their definition from the section "Properties" to "Definition". But meh, whatever. It's optional anyway. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why do you need the plural word for "vertex" – this seems pretty helpful to me, since the words vertex and vertices appear all over this article, and it's a non-standard pluralization. –jacobolus (t) 16:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein, @Jacobolus. I think I should on hold the addition of see-also links later applying to the content, and maybe this can be discuss later. As I mentioned, the article has met six criterias. I guess I can pass this article! Felicitations to both of you! Dedhert.Jr (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]