GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Mhawk10 ( talk · contribs) 05:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I'll take a look at this article and give feedback over the next couple of days. —
Ⓜ️hawk10 (
talk)
05:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
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. |
No spelling or grammar errors that I can detect on another read through, aside from the issue I'm raising in the area on original research. Once that's fine, this should be good to go from a prose quality perspective. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 04:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | There are issues with compliance with
MOS:LEAD. The lead does not include any materials from the "Examples of Applications", "Types", and "History" sections, while it probably should. The length of the lead was something that was noted in
Talk:Binary search tree/GA1 but has not been fixed. This technically would be enough for a quick fail, though it's often best to re-write the lead after all of the other fixes are made so I think it's best to
WP:IAR and put this on hold rather than give a quick fail. —
Ⓜ️hawk10 (
talk)
02:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
|
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. | There indeed is a references section that is MOS-compliant. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 18:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
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). | All of the citations that are in the document are reliable sources. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 00:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | The second edition of the MIT textbook that is cited for the Tree-Predecessor pseudocode is left as an exercise to the reader (Exercise 12.2-3) in the cited textbook. While the text notes that "The procedure TREE-PREDECESSOR, which is symmetric to TREE-SUCCESSOR", the citation is a bit weak to support the specific pseudocode in the article. —
Ⓜ️hawk10 (
talk)
01:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | I've acquired a copy of
Introduction to Algorithms, Second Edition. The cited pages of the book appear to give pseudocode that contains the same function names as are in the book, though the pseudocode itself is transformed so as to not be a verbatim copy of what's in the book. The book was published in the United States, so the copyrights are exclusively governed by U.S. law. Copyrights in the United States are not valid when there are a
very limited set of ways in which an idea can be expressed, so the pseudocode for those algorithms per se is not eligible under copyright protection. However, the choice to use "Tree-Search" for the name of the recursive search function and "Iterative-Tree-Search" for the iterative search function alongside the use of "Tree-Successor", "Tree-Maximum", "Tree-Minimum", "Tree-Insert", "Tree-Delete", and " probably extends beyond this limited exception to copyright—it's certainly possible to give the functions different names than are given in the MIT textbook. —
Ⓜ️hawk10 (
talk)
01:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
If you'd like to take action against a source that copied Wikipedia without attribution, this medium post showed 67% similarity to this article on WP:EARWIG. This is a case of a publication copying Wikipedia, so it does not pose an issue for the article's promotion to GA. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 02:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | There is a lot written about
self-balancing binary search trees in the academic literature, which appears to be a child topic of this article. The current article addresses this topic within the "types" section, but it doesn't really go in-depth into it. It also isn't quite structured like the typical parent-child article relation (for example, with the {{
main article}} template as a header of a section or sub-section). —
Ⓜ️hawk10 (
talk)
02:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article seems to have no problems here. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 04:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Looks fine as of now. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 02:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | I don't see any edit warring recently. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 02:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
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. | The images used in the article are tagged with their copyright status. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 18:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images pertain to the material and have policy-compliant captions. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 18:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | On hold for now. —
Ⓜ️hawk10 (
talk)
18:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
|
A drive-by comment (re GACR 3a or maybe 4): The coverage of optimal binary search trees is currently totally inadequate. It is ungrammatical (the first noun phrase of the first sentence is missing its article). It fails to properly describe the problem (optimal in this context means in terms of average time with respect to some distribution or sequence of updates, not worst case time). It is misclassified under "self-balancing" (much of the work in this area is on static algorithms for constructing these trees, not on self-balancing trees). It fails to mention the time bounds for these static problems, or even the basic fact that these trees can be constructed in polynomial time. It fails to mention the connection to online algorithms and competitive ratios via the dynamic optimality conjecture for splay trees and greedy-ass trees and tango trees. If this is representative of the whole article I can see why this is on its third review after two previous contentious reviews — this is a level of unreadiness for GA that cosmetic edits alone won't fix. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I've taken a note of your comment on the optimal BST. But I don't think I can access Wikipedia for a day or two since I'm facing power outage for 2 days due to a major storm in Toronto area. I'm not sure when the power will be back.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61541653.amp WikiLinuz-mobile ( talk) 21:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Mhawk10 ( talk · contribs) 05:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I'll take a look at this article and give feedback over the next couple of days. —
Ⓜ️hawk10 (
talk)
05:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
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. |
No spelling or grammar errors that I can detect on another read through, aside from the issue I'm raising in the area on original research. Once that's fine, this should be good to go from a prose quality perspective. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 04:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | There are issues with compliance with
MOS:LEAD. The lead does not include any materials from the "Examples of Applications", "Types", and "History" sections, while it probably should. The length of the lead was something that was noted in
Talk:Binary search tree/GA1 but has not been fixed. This technically would be enough for a quick fail, though it's often best to re-write the lead after all of the other fixes are made so I think it's best to
WP:IAR and put this on hold rather than give a quick fail. —
Ⓜ️hawk10 (
talk)
02:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
|
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. | There indeed is a references section that is MOS-compliant. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 18:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
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). | All of the citations that are in the document are reliable sources. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 00:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | The second edition of the MIT textbook that is cited for the Tree-Predecessor pseudocode is left as an exercise to the reader (Exercise 12.2-3) in the cited textbook. While the text notes that "The procedure TREE-PREDECESSOR, which is symmetric to TREE-SUCCESSOR", the citation is a bit weak to support the specific pseudocode in the article. —
Ⓜ️hawk10 (
talk)
01:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | I've acquired a copy of
Introduction to Algorithms, Second Edition. The cited pages of the book appear to give pseudocode that contains the same function names as are in the book, though the pseudocode itself is transformed so as to not be a verbatim copy of what's in the book. The book was published in the United States, so the copyrights are exclusively governed by U.S. law. Copyrights in the United States are not valid when there are a
very limited set of ways in which an idea can be expressed, so the pseudocode for those algorithms per se is not eligible under copyright protection. However, the choice to use "Tree-Search" for the name of the recursive search function and "Iterative-Tree-Search" for the iterative search function alongside the use of "Tree-Successor", "Tree-Maximum", "Tree-Minimum", "Tree-Insert", "Tree-Delete", and " probably extends beyond this limited exception to copyright—it's certainly possible to give the functions different names than are given in the MIT textbook. —
Ⓜ️hawk10 (
talk)
01:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
If you'd like to take action against a source that copied Wikipedia without attribution, this medium post showed 67% similarity to this article on WP:EARWIG. This is a case of a publication copying Wikipedia, so it does not pose an issue for the article's promotion to GA. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 02:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | There is a lot written about
self-balancing binary search trees in the academic literature, which appears to be a child topic of this article. The current article addresses this topic within the "types" section, but it doesn't really go in-depth into it. It also isn't quite structured like the typical parent-child article relation (for example, with the {{
main article}} template as a header of a section or sub-section). —
Ⓜ️hawk10 (
talk)
02:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article seems to have no problems here. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 04:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Looks fine as of now. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 02:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | I don't see any edit warring recently. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 02:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
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. | The images used in the article are tagged with their copyright status. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 18:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images pertain to the material and have policy-compliant captions. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 18:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | On hold for now. —
Ⓜ️hawk10 (
talk)
18:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
|
A drive-by comment (re GACR 3a or maybe 4): The coverage of optimal binary search trees is currently totally inadequate. It is ungrammatical (the first noun phrase of the first sentence is missing its article). It fails to properly describe the problem (optimal in this context means in terms of average time with respect to some distribution or sequence of updates, not worst case time). It is misclassified under "self-balancing" (much of the work in this area is on static algorithms for constructing these trees, not on self-balancing trees). It fails to mention the time bounds for these static problems, or even the basic fact that these trees can be constructed in polynomial time. It fails to mention the connection to online algorithms and competitive ratios via the dynamic optimality conjecture for splay trees and greedy-ass trees and tango trees. If this is representative of the whole article I can see why this is on its third review after two previous contentious reviews — this is a level of unreadiness for GA that cosmetic edits alone won't fix. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I've taken a note of your comment on the optimal BST. But I don't think I can access Wikipedia for a day or two since I'm facing power outage for 2 days due to a major storm in Toronto area. I'm not sure when the power will be back.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61541653.amp WikiLinuz-mobile ( talk) 21:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)