Talk:Pentagonal pyramid/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Dedhert.Jr (talk · contribs) 01:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Randomstaplers (talk · contribs) 20:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this article. Before that and in the middle of that, I had several minor changes, for which I have to apologize for some inconvenience and aftereffects. Have your seat and be at peace with it. Checkpoint oldid starts here: [1] Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll start...

Yeah, it'll probably take a while for me to search through the library to verify sources.
In the meantime, I'm looking through the mathematics MOS, where it encourages including "historical motivation" in the lead section. Out of curiosity... have you been able to find anything historical besides the 14 references in Complex Polyhedra...?
By the way, the ref from Çolak et. al currently leads to a 404.⸺(Random)staplers 05:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Colak et. al 404": Added URL that shows the actual doi, although it seems to be not found anymore.

Re "Complex Polyhedra": I am not sure what this is. A book source? A journal academic? I have looked up and there are no sources mentioning that title. Can you tell me more specifically? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Historical motivation": It says when appropriate. That does not mean every article has them. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Randomstaplers, @Dedhert.Jr, what's the status here? -- asilvering (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering waitin' for the reviewer. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering I'm still in the process of skimming through library books. (As well as Playfair's and Hilbert's book that I still have to go through.) Might take a while as the only reviewer, unless anyone else wants to add something in the meantime.——Randomstapler's alt 20:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA reviews are typically only handled by one reviewer, so it's unlikely anyone else will step in. -- asilvering (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to article, collapsing.⸺(Random)staplers 17:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this ref [2] by Norman Johnson, and seems to be cited in all the Johnson solid articles.⸺(Random)staplers 18:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes? In fact, the Johnson source cites the vertex configuration (see Square pyramid), symmetry and dihedral angles of all Johnson solids. The template {{Johnson solid}} tells us about the Johnson solid's historical background, but this lorem ipsum causes a different contradiction template usage of both lorem ipsum template and the article: considering the lorem ipsum template uses CS3 format, it is fine if an article uses CS2, but we should avoid if the article uses CS1 instead. I prefer to avoid this template as soon as possible and as many as possible. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're getting off on the wrong foot here. You're not writing this article for me, per se; you're writing this article for them.

They're not going to care about templates(!)

Now admittedly, we are unusual in that we edit Wikipedia... but I highly doubt the editor of a general encyclopedia wouldn't ask the same questions like I am.
Respectfully, Dedhert.Jr, borrowing books from the library takes time, so don't rush it. ⸺(Random)staplers 04:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know my emotions can run high sometimes...

...but at the end of the day it's just one Wikipedia article. That's all. One badly reviewed Wikipedia article isn't going to ruin a competent person's chances long-term. (I would hope.)⸺(Random)staplers 04:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Sorry. I did not mean to offend someone by getting off on the wrong foot. I meant I was trying literally to avoid those happening. You know what? I'll be patiently waiting for your next comments on reviewing. Take your time. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a comment. There is a GA at Fiveling on particles of various sizes with five-fold symmetry. I think there should be some mention of this for wider context, although these are based around pentagonal bipyramids with some additional features. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954 The fiveling are using the pentagonal bipyramid, and we already have that one the wikilinked article. I don't think this topic may bring to the pentagonal pyramid is a good idea. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to insist, but at the same time I am going to disagree, particularly for a GA. There are far too many articles on Wikipedia which start with "In physics", "In chemistry", "In mathematics" and similar. This is putting science into boxes, which might seem right but is deeply flawed; science is Venn diagrams not boxes. An article on pentagonal pyramids written where the #Applications section is 2 paragraphs of geometry and a token on chemistry of Pentagonal pyramidal molecular geometry IMO is not the best, and as an encyclopedia we should try and do better; currently this articles is in a geometry box with the lid firmly closed. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954 I understand your meaning here. But there are some other articles may use "applications" to include the polyhedron usage in different fields. For example, square pyramids are used in the building of Egyptian pyramids, construction of polyhedron, and stereochemistry. This is the same way for the triaugmented triangular prism. In some cases, I wrote polyhedral articles, using "appearances" section to include a polyhedron's appearance in ancient times, applications in different fields, and popular cultures. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placing on hold, awaiting improvements.⸺(Random)staplers 03:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]