Talk:Convex hull/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 01:24, 9 April 2020 (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):

   The prose standard is good. The article complies with the indicated portions of MoS, with a possible minor exception in the lead: MoS suggests that the lead section of an article this long should contain "two or three paragraphs", where this article currently has four. It's a guideline, so I won't hold back the nomination over it, but it's something to consider.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The article contains many citations to reputable published sources. I see no signs of plagiarism from online sources, though one random site seems to have copied text from here. I haven't dug through the sources yet; that will come next.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article maintains a suitable focus on its topic, and it generally achieves broad coverage, with a small exception for the concept's history. Is it known who coined this term or first began using it in its modern sense? The article mentions an early use but doesn't assert whether that is in fact the first. Is it known how or why this term came to be the standard one, rather than e.g. the other used earlier that is mentioned? The history section feels thin relative to the rest of the document, and I wish it told me more.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article maintains a suitably neutral tone and stance toward the topic, not e.g. exaggerating its significance.

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):

   The images used in the article have suitable tagged licenses, and they are relevant and helpful to explaining the topic. I feel that File:3D Convex Hull.tiff would be better placed in "Special cases/Finite point sets", but there's already a good 2-D illustration there, and I don't think there's room for both; it's probably still helpful where it is.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'll look through the sourcing next. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)