Talk:Nearest-neighbor chain algorithm/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tessaract2 (talk · contribs) 15:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be assessing this article. Tessaract2^Talk 15:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I moved extraneous info from lead to the background area, but this may require cleanup to work correctly.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	May require cleanup, as I have fixed the issue with the lead. Please proofread the "Background" area. Meanwhile, this will be on hold until 12/22/16 or I am notified.

I disagree with removing the last two paragraphs from the lead, and putting them into the background section. The lead is supposed to contain text (frequently unsourced) that summarizes the content that is provided in more detail and with sources later in the other sections of the article, in effect providing a mini-article that would provide a reader with the main gist of the subject. That is exactly what those two paragraphs were intended to achieve. Without them, the lead section would contain no summary of the main points of the algorithm, correctness, analysis and application sections. It would violate WP:LEAD, part of the GA requirements. Additionally, because those two paragraphs are unsourced (because they should be, as lead summaries of later content) moving them into a non-lead section would violate our GA requirements that all parts of the article would be appropriately sourced. Accordingly, I have moved the paragraphs back. Please reconsider WP:LEAD, and what it says about the content of the lead section in the context of this GA review. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]