This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Both convex and concave polygons are, afaik, subsets of simple polygon set, so revert was not needed cause current sentence confuses the reader making concave polygon somehow different than simple —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.93.218 ( talk) 13:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment below moved from Talk:Kepler-Poinsot_solid
Tom, I just corrected some factual errors which crept into your tidy-up, added something I'd forgotten, and did a bit more tidying to help clarify it all. Hope all is now sensible. Steelpillow 11:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I added a tone template to the geometry section. Phrases like "A complex number may be represented as say (a + ib)" and "In an ordinary, or real plane, we can construct a visible figure..." are informal and inappropriate (one is even incorrect grammar). I would just fix it, but this stuff is beyond my expertise and I don't want to inadvertently change the meaning or anything. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
One article should not try to describe two entirely unrelated subjects. – jacobolus (t) 03:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Both convex and concave polygons are, afaik, subsets of simple polygon set, so revert was not needed cause current sentence confuses the reader making concave polygon somehow different than simple —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.93.218 ( talk) 13:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment below moved from Talk:Kepler-Poinsot_solid
Tom, I just corrected some factual errors which crept into your tidy-up, added something I'd forgotten, and did a bit more tidying to help clarify it all. Hope all is now sensible. Steelpillow 11:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I added a tone template to the geometry section. Phrases like "A complex number may be represented as say (a + ib)" and "In an ordinary, or real plane, we can construct a visible figure..." are informal and inappropriate (one is even incorrect grammar). I would just fix it, but this stuff is beyond my expertise and I don't want to inadvertently change the meaning or anything. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
One article should not try to describe two entirely unrelated subjects. – jacobolus (t) 03:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)