Talk:Ideal polyhedron/GA1
GA Review
{{Good article tools}}
Reviewer: HeartGlow30797 (talk · contribs) 04:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left" |
| style="vertical-align:top;"
! width="30" | Rate ! width="300"| Attribute ! | Review Comment |
| style="vertical-align:top;"
| colspan="3" | 1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}: {{GATable/item|1a|y| }} {{GATable/item|1b|y| }} |
| style="vertical-align:top;"
| colspan="3" | 2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}: {{GATable/item|2a|y| }} {{GATable/item|2b|y| }} {{GATable/item|2c|y| }} {{GATable/item|2d|y| }} |
| style="vertical-align:top;"
| colspan="3" | 3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}: {{GATable/item|3a|y| }} {{GATable/item|3b|y| }} {{GATable/item|4|y| }} {{GATable/item|5|y|Note: One editor. }} |
| style="vertical-align:top;"
| colspan="3" | 6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}: {{GATable/item|6a|y|Note: All pictures are original work. }} {{GATable/item|6b|y| }} {{GATable/item|7|y|This is my second assessment. So feel free to get a second opinion if you feel this is wrong. This is a great article, just fix the wording and you'll be golden :D. }} |
{{GAProgress | prose = y| mos = y| reflayout = y| reliablesources = y| originalresearch = y
| copyvio = y| broadness = y| focus = y| neutral = y| stable = y| freeortaggedpics = y
| picsrelevant = y}}
:{{ping|HeartGlow30797}} I've taken out the "intuitively" and "formally" qualifiers from the lead as unnecessary. However, the rest of your comment on criterion 1a does not really provide me any guidance on where to look for text that does not flow well. Can you provide me some more specific examples? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|David Eppstein}} It's fine. Minor edits can be fixed down the road. HeartGlow (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
::: It sounds to me as though this matter is resolved. I came here because of the note requesting a second opinion, and I concur with, it seems, both of you, that the lead is in fact very readable: for the topic, I'd say it was surprisingly approachable, a model of good technical writing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
::::Agreed and in any case, while this kind of issue might be appropriate for a FA review, the GA article criteria are looking for clarity rather than exemplary style. I think the article can be promoted as is. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)