Talk:Arc diagram

Arc diagram has been listed as one of the Mathematics good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 31, 2025. (Reviewed version).

GA review

Passed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arc diagram/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 18:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 06:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. Just two minor comments, plus some restructuring needed to comply with MOS:LEAD. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Link Hamiltonian to Hamiltonian path in the image, since it doesn't appear in the lede
Some of the information in the lede section doesn't appear elsewhere in the article (contrary to MOS:LEAD). I would move some of the more specific information such as the quote to a new section about the general concept, merge the "Clockwise orientation" section there, and have the lede be solely a summary of the rest of the article.
Is there any source that names Saaty (1964) and Nicholson (1968) as the originators of the concept? If not, I would add "at least" to "dating back..."

Ok, all three done. I don't think I moved the information from the lead exactly to the places you suggested, but it's all moved. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Great work, passing now! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
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):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.