Jump to content

Talk:Pentagonal pyramid/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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]

@Randomstaplers. My apologies for pinging, but any updates? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr - I was expecting improvement in the #Applications section as described above, that's why the GA was put on hold. Do you plan on working on this article any time soon?⸺(Random)staplers 23:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randomstaplers Am always ready. And I already explained my reason to keep them in the box. If I somehow manage to merge two paragraphs on the first section, it will be fine. But that would also mean to remove subsections into one. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr - Well, I've kept you waiting long enough. Here are some of my concerns:

  • The article lists Hartshorne (2000) as a citation. It's a little puzzling to me why it was included, because the part cited is literally the last chapter of a textbook... which is a sign of questionable sourcing.
  • It took me a while to find what powered this gadget, but the bigger problem is what ORES thinks of the article.

In other words... you're going to need to do a lot more work to get this up to GA quality. But... I'm not one to slam the door, so if you keep working at it, I'll keep this GA open, but on hold.⸺(Random)staplers 01:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randomstaplers Hartshorne source explains the meaning of elementary polyhedra. And it's not clear what WP:ORES are you referring to? The article is good providing to follow WP:GACR. I already explained about the fiveling problem before: the fiveling is more focused on pentagonal bipyramids. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Dedhert.Jr - I was referring to the gadget located at User:EpochFail/ArticleQuality-loader.js, which uses ORES. You can install it via going to Preferences > Gadgets > Advanced - Install scripts without having to manually edit JavaScript files. That should allow you to see the "Install" button when you click the link.⸺(Random)staplers 16:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. But again. We are focus on what WP:GACR says. The ORES is just nothing but a tool to provide the data of article quality measurement. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have already answered those comments. Hartshorne is done. Fiveling is done. ORES is done, although I have asked the importance on this tool in WT:GAN. Did I miss something? My apologies for the words. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randomstaplers. I am not sure how long does this review will take. Any updates? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering It seems that the reviewer did not give responses at all. Shall I asked for the second opinion, leaving the nominations and passing the article to the one? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I did not respond to anything as I was not reviewing. I just made one suggestion which has been responded to. While I still think more real life examples would be good, that is not a reason to reject. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh. Well, it seems silly to fail this, but you also clearly haven't received an actual review. ORES has absolutely nothing to do with anything here. I'll put it up for a second opinion in the original reviewer's stead, since it looks like they've been away for a little while. -- asilvering (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I can find more applications about pentagonal pyramids in real life. If only they do have more, I probably have to give a big chunk on the article. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/cp/b818062h, I know the senior author so it should be good. Also
https://next-gen.materialsproject.org/materials/mp-1221393
https://doi.org/10.22226/2410-3535-2017-1-39-43 Ldm1954 (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. Will add this later. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done adding, some of them. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me, at an appropriate level for a GA article. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Restart of GAR by Ldm1954 (talk)

Requested changes

  1. In the lead you have "disclination nature of pyramidal-shaper copper". Please change to "disclinations in fivelings and related shapes such as pyramidal copper and other metal nanowires". Technical correction, this is one of my areas of expertise.
  2. The phase "and four in five of a full turn" is a bit odd. I think "four-fifths" is more common useage.Ldm1954 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Randomstaplers, @Dedhert.Jr, apart from the two minor changes above I am done with my GAR of this. Please do or respond appropriately so I can finalize. Thanks. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954 Done. But questioning the first one, the body of the article does not mention anything about nanowires and fivelings, so how are those related? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in Russian, which I don't speak. The standard name for this type of feature is a nanowire or rod, see for instance the figure on the left in Fiveling#Three-dimensional shape. Technically it is not a great example as this type of structure goes back > 50 years, see the refs on wires in DOI 10.1088/0022-3719/5/5/004 plus I think also DOI: 10.1107/S0365110X64002006 . It is not a great example.
N.B., at the end you have "can be associated with the disclination nature of the copper". It should be "due to disclinations in twinned copper particles" or similar. The disclination comes from the internal structure of the particle, not the (copper) element. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2025 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): 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:
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pentagonal_pyramid/GA1&oldid=1269178470"