Talk:Rook's graph

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rook's graph/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 22:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   One comment below

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   One reference required; see below

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Comments

Looks good. Very few comments:

• "chess piece" is two words
  • It cannot be two separate words in this context, because the three-noun compound "chess piece tours" would be ambiguously grouped. Instead I used a hyphen: "chess-piece tours". —David Eppstein (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Access date required on fn 12
  • I don't think anything in the GA rules actually requires this, and more important would have been a date and the broader work that this web page is part of. But anyway, ok, reference expanded. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You're right. I just came off a couple of FAC source reviews and was too picky about consistency, which is not required at GA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The suggestion led to an improvement, though, and that more than following the exact requirements is more what I'm hoping to get out of the GA process. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference required on first paragraph of "Independence"
  • There was a reference on most of the paragraph. I removed the final unsourced sentence. (It is obviously true, but finding a source that says such a thing explicitly in the mathematical literature on the maze of equivalent forms of rook's graphs is difficult, and the difficulty of sourcing it suggests that maybe it is not so important.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Add the mathematics portal to the portals in the See also section
  • I am very much not a fan of portals. Portals are dead zombie cruft from many years ago. Stop trying to make portals not dead. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • Fair enough. It seemed odd to have one but not the other. If you can add the missing reference, I will pass the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: all comments addressed (or at least responded to); please take another look. (Also for symmetry I removed the chess portal; there's not much about chess in here.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]