Talk:Halin graph/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 01:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add a short description and then WP:ALT text for every image.
- I don't really see the point of alt texts that duplicate the information in the image captions, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images agrees, while saying that for technical reasons the alt texts should not actually be missing or blank. Anyway, ok, done. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"remains Hamiltonian after deletion of" → "remains a Hamiltonian after the deletion of"
- No. That would be ungrammatical. Correct grammar would be either "remains [adjective] after ..." or "remains [noun phrase] after ...". "Hamiltonian" is correct, as an adjective. "a Hamiltonian" is incomplete as a noun phrase: a Hamiltonian what? (It is possible to use "a Hamiltonian" as a noun in mathematics but it means something unrelated.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on adding "the" before "deletion"? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-problematic. Done. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the comma after "the application of Courcelle's theorem".
- This is from a sentence "Other methods include [method 1], or [method 2], neither of which...". The comma is optional but not incorrect. It serves a useful purpose in this sentence, preventing "the application of Courcelle's theorem or a method based on graph rewriting" from being misread as a single method described in two ways. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"These graphs gained in significance" → "These graphs gained significance"
- Done. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph in #History needs a source.
- Extended the footnote to Rademacher to cover the part stated in his work, and repeated a different footnote to source the claim that his work is about Halin graphs. Done. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Great work on this article.

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): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·