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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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) 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) 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) 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) 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) }}