Talk:Three utilities problem/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 09:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"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)".
- Linked. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"In the utility graph, $E=9$ $E=9$ and $2V-4=8$ $2V-4=8$ , violating this inequality, so the utility graph cannot be planar." — "violating this inequality, so the utility graph cannot be planar." could be phrased better.
- To violate an inequality is standard language, but I reworded to remind readers what the inequality is, in the process also using different wording here. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"K_3,3" — Shouldn't it be consistent throughout the article, as $K_{3,3}$ $K_{3,3}$ ?
- Thanks for catching this; fixed. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"K_3,3 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.
- No "is" is the main verb here; everything after "which" is a dependent clause. Changing "is" to "as" would leave the sentence unverbed. But your comment made me notice that the sentence was unnecessarily long (impeding readability) so I broke it up into smaller sentences. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"3"; "4" → "three"; "four"?
"and obviously they are equal." — Using "obviously" should be avoided. You can either edit it out or rephrase that part.

~~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)[reply]