Talk:Three utilities problem/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 09:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I will begin the review shortly. — The Most Comfortable Chair 09:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- @The Most Comfortable Chair: Ten days later, any progress? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Lead
- Something that stands out to me is the size of the lead. The lead accounts for around 20% of readable text in the article. While it does a decent job of covering all the important aspects in the body of the article, it is somewhat overdetailed and could use some pruning.
- The crossing number — which is one — should be mentioned in the lead. And that the problem is very old perhaps.
Puzzle solutions
- "Kullman, however, states that" — "Kullman" should be linked when mentioned first, like it is in "History" (up to you if you want to link it again in that section) — "Kullman (1979)".
- "In the utility graph, and , violating this inequality, so the utility graph cannot be planar." — "violating this inequality, so the utility graph cannot be planar." could be phrased better.
Changing the rules
- "K3,3" — Shouldn't it be consistent throughout the article, as ?
- "K3,3 is a toroidal graph, which means it can be embedded without crossings on a torus, a surface of genus one, and that versions of the puzzle in which the houses and companies are drawn on a coffee mug or other such surface instead of a flat plane can be solved." — Instead of "is a toroidal graph", wouldn't "as a toroidal graph" be more grammatically accurate, considering the whole sentence? Or the sentence could be broken down in two or three sentences if you would prefer that.
Properties of the utility graph
- "3"; "4" → "three"; "four"?
- "and obviously they are equal." — Using "obviously" should be avoided. You can either edit it out or rephrase that part.
References
- Reference 3; 26 — Can the page range be more specific?
- Reference 17 — Use the full-form of "IFToMM". Also, could it be as a separate parameter instead?
I apologize for the delay. I had almost finished reviewing the article when my laptop crashed, and then it took me a while to do it again. It was an interesting read and it should pass. — The Most Comfortable Chair 17:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)