Talk:Rule 184/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chalst (talk · contribs) 11:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary comments

This article clearly meets the standards for breadth, neutrality, stability and being well-illustrated. It is mostly well-written, although I found I was unable to follow the section dealing with particle deposition. It seems to be well-sourced: there were no surprising omissions, although I did not check that many of the citations matched their usage in the article.

The lead is fairly long and includes a bullet list. However, as it is clear and motivates the main contents of the article well I think it does not need changing. The article layout is very good; clearly David Eppstein, the main author of the article as it stands, is on top of Wikipedia's style.

I recommend that the section on particle deposition be expanded to make it easier to follow. The section has an illustration, but I did not follow how this was related to the dynamics of the rule.

As this is my first GA review, I will seek feedback from an experienced reviewer. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Postscript - I checked for copyvio and there was an article uploaded to academia.edu that showed a large overlap with this article. It was clear that that article was drawing from this article, not the other way around. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take another look at that section. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Chalst: Hello? When can I expect an updated review? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying; I have been on a week's internet break. I sought feedback from user Aircorn on the review, who thought it was OK: I was waiting for you to address the readability issue in the section on particle deposition. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

But I did expand that section, soon after you left that comment. Are you still finding it too unclear? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I had missed your new text. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Updated review

I now follow the section on particle deposition and I find the standard of writing here OK, although I think I will add some extra clarifying text to the section. I have checked more of the references, all of the references accessible to me, to see that they matched their citation context, which they do. I think the article now meets all of the good article criteria. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Any additional clarifications you might want to add are welcome, of course. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)