Talk:Rado graph/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 23:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'll review this one. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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):

   I've done some editing for clarity and style (removing a couple of textbook-style imperatives), and now the prose is at a good standard. The relevant MoS sections are handled.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Some assertions that are presented as self-evident without citation (that, to a reader comfortable with the content, are just that) make me worry about challenges as WP:OR. The sentence "Because the graphs constructed ... are all countable graphs with the extension property, this argument shows that they are all isomorphic to each other." at the end of the section "Uniqueness" is an example. Upon reviewing the scientific citation guidelines, I think these are probably acceptable as "uncontroversial knowledge" common to those familiar with the discipline, so I don't think it's an obstacle to promotion, but I just wanted to note it.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The final sentence says that "Shelah (1984, 1990) investigates universal graphs with uncountably many vertices." If that's going to be included, then the text should go on to give at least a one-sentence summary of what Shelah finds about such graphs; otherwise, it should be removed.

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Only minor issues, and then this should be ready for promotion. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try to get to these soon, probably this weekend. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bryanrutherford0: Ok, I've improved the sourcing of some straightforward but unsourced statements and expanded the Shelah mention. Done? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep, that covers all of my concerns, thank you for your responsive editing! This article is promoted to GA! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)