Talk:Handshaking lemma/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 21:03, 12 November 2021 (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):
In the very first sentence, on my first reading, I understood it to say that "every finite undirected graph has an even number of vertices" (clearly untrue), and only after a minute's reflection saw that it meant to say that, of the vertices of any finite undirected graph, the number of vertices that have an odd number of edges touching them must be even. The second sentence tends toward the same misunderstanding, in my opinion. Is there a way to accurately state the main idea that eliminates this potential confusion, while staying smooth and easy to read? Otherwise, the prose is clear and professional. The article also appears to comply with the relevant sections of MoS.
Reworded to avoid this ambiguity. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that does it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think the section that mentions directed graphs would benefit from the point you made in the talk page ("It's true for total degree but that's essentially the same as the degree in the underlying undirected graph.").

Ok, but that would require a reliable source that makes the same point. Do you know of one? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't; if you feel that the idea that the sum of a node's indegree and outdegree in a directed graph is equal to the degree of the corresponding node in the underlying undirected graph is non-obvious enough to merit citation, then I guess it can be left out. Probably a good clarification to have if this were to e.g. run for FA. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
There is a reference section containing numerous citations to reputable published sources. I don't see any sign of plagiarism from online sources. All of the online sources substantiate the claims they're cited for, and almost all of the cited sources are online. The content looks verifiable.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article stays appropriately focused on its topic. I think the statement, proof, and some major applications constitute broad coverage of the topic, though there are probably many other applications that could be explored (I'd love to see something about its relevance to chemistry, but that can wait!).
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The presentation of the topic is suitably neutral, not e.g. exaggerating the importance of the topic or unduly promoting any of the people involved in its development.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No sign of edit wars, and no edits since being nominated for GA.
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):
The illustrations have suitable licenses and are visually clear, with strong captions explaining their relevance.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
A clear, focused article on a well-defined topic! I'll work through the sourcing as soon as I can, and if no issues come up there, then I think I'll just have the prose niggles. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue I raised has been addressed, and everything else looks great. This article is hereby approved for GA. Well done! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]