Talk:Greedy coloring/GA1

GA Review

RESULT

Promoted to GA

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.

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

Reviewer: Spinningspark (talk · contribs) 18:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking... SpinningSpark 18:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Suggest wikilink "online" as this is not the usual meaning

Choice of ordering

Kn/2,n/2 notation is not explained

I know we are not supposed to refer back to a higher level heading, but I'm not sure that works for the subheadings of this section. It took a while before I understood what the "Bad" subheading was referring to. I think the difficulty is these headings are adjectives. The MOS does say that noun phrases should normally be used. Same issue in the following section too.

Indifferent

Link co-NP-complete

Degenerate

"The largest number d encountered during this algorithm as the degree of a removed vertex..." Does this mean d is the degree of the removed vertex? If so perhaps "The largest number d encountered during this algorithm, where d is the degree of a removed vertex, is called the degeneracy..."
I'm not sure I understand how the diagram is meant to relate to vertex colouring. The vertices are not coloured in the image, but the caption claims to show "greedy coloring with the degeneracy ordering". If the image is just there because those shapes are mentioned in the text, then the caption should be changed to suit.
2-approximation is not linked or explained. The appropriate link seems to be Approximation algorithm#Performance guarantees if I have understood it correctly.

Adaptive

I know it's a fairly basic concept, but it still might be worth linking cardinality

I've asked another editor to look at the Python code as that is outside my skills set to comment on. SpinningSpark 10:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: Ok, I think I've handled everything.

In "Choice of ordering", I replaced the explanation of crown graphs using complete bipartite graphs and matchings (intuitive but requiring some background knowledge) with a lower-level direct construction of these graphs, also helpful for explaining the bad ordering of them.
Subsection headings are all nouns or noun phrases now. I think they're less catchy that way, but maybe more informative.
In degeneracy, "d" is the number for the whole graph, not a single vertex; reworded to clarify. The illustration indeed shows only the graphs, not their (many!) degeneracy-based greedy colorings and optimal colorings; I thought the caption already said that, but I have reworded to clarify. It is there to remind readers what the two graphs mentioned in the text look like. "2-approximation" expanded to a less technical explanation.
Other minor suggestions done.

—David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.