Talk:Garden of Eden (cellular automaton)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) 13:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Over the next couple days, I will be reviewing this article and posting my thoughts, comments, and concerns here. I may make minor copyedits and fixes, but anything larger will be discussed here with you. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall review status[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	This article is very well written.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Y, Y, Y, Y, & n/a
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Excellent sourcing work on this article!
	2c. it contains no original research.	All material is properly sourced—no synthesis of sources either.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I do not have access to every source, but spot checks do not reveal any plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All major points appear to be well covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Clear & important examples only are given.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Not applicable.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Issue discussed below resolved.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is one of the most well-written good articles I have ever reviewed. Great work!

Reviewer comments[edit]

For the Rule 90 image, it appears to be a 500 by 500 array of cells in a 2D plane, whereas the text correctly calls Rule 90 a 1D cellular automaton. I believe the image is a time-space diagram with time step increasing as you go down the y-axis. This is not readily apparent and may be confusing to users unfamiliar with the subject matter. Would it be possible to either (1) put axes on the image or (2) add a sentence or two to the caption describing what the image represents?

On another note, the Rule 90 image on the page is so compressed from the original that it appears grayscale and not binary. Do you think increasing it to its original size (500 by 500 pixels) would be better for the presentation in this article? I can also generate a smaller Rule 90 time-space diagram rather than 500 cells over 500 generations if needed.

Other than that, this article looks very good! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reaper Eternal: Ok, I replaced by a coarser image and copyedited the caption to clarify that it is a time-space diagram. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]