List of Johnson solids
| Toolbox |
|---|
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this article to be FL-class. All of the changes before I substitute them to the original article are in my sandbox User:Dedhert.Jr/sandbox/1. I appreciate someone who wants to review and give suggestions for the sake of improvement. Thanks, Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 14:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: The article is very light on citations. The tables for surface area, volume, and inradius/circumradius/midradius, all lack inline citations and might be verging on original research, even though there is wording above to the effect that the info is taken from WolframAlpha. (This isn't to that I think the info wrong per se; however, for Wikipedia purposes, pretty much everything in articlespace needs to have a citation just as a matter of good practice.) In fact, the entire list article has no inline citations at all, just a list of two presumably-related books and several external links.
- I think you (@
Dedhert.Jr) should use the refs you've already found to cite as much as you can. Then, for the rest of the tables, I'd guess that you might want to cite a bunch of WolframAlpha queries to cover the rest? Other than that there might not be much one can do in the way of referencing.
Duckmather (
talk) 00:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I just added some citations to deal with the lead section. The body still desperately needs inline citations, which I'm not sure I can provide.
Duckmather (
talk) 00:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Duckmather It's all in my sandbox. I will implement it now.
Dedhert.Jr (
talk) 02:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I have removed the inradius/circumradius/midradius, which can only be found at a few smaller numbers of Johnson solids. I don't think we should add them, together with the graphs as well (see the talk article). Also, I removed the nets, which is already painful to draw them massively even though we do have a source. I do think that journals and books are more reliable rather than WolframAlpha.
Dedhert.Jr (
talk) 02:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Duckmather It's already over one week. Are there any comments?
Dedhert.Jr (
talk) 00:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- @ TechnoSquirrel69 The reviewer has already inactive in the process of reviewing over than three weeks. I would not expect that the @ Duckmather is AWOL at this point. Do you think I should find another reviewer here? Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 12:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- @
Duckmather It's already over one week. Are there any comments?
Dedhert.Jr (
talk) 00:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I have removed the inradius/circumradius/midradius, which can only be found at a few smaller numbers of Johnson solids. I don't think we should add them, together with the graphs as well (see the talk article). Also, I removed the nets, which is already painful to draw them massively even though we do have a source. I do think that journals and books are more reliable rather than WolframAlpha.
Dedhert.Jr (
talk) 02:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Duckmather It's all in my sandbox. I will implement it now.
Dedhert.Jr (
talk) 02:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've already listed this page at the unanswered peer reviews sidebar. If you know any particular editor who might be interested in reviewing the article, can can of course request them to do so. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 18:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @ TechnoSquirrel69 I'll see if I give a notification from WP:WPM. Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 13:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I just added some citations to deal with the lead section. The body still desperately needs inline citations, which I'm not sure I can provide.
Duckmather (
talk) 00:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
-
Comment:
- This is an encylopedia; not a textbook. Hence, we need not wax eloquent either on what is a polyhedron or on what is a convex polyhedron but simply link to the wiki-articles.
- An average reader knows what "volume" is; please do not define it!
- How does this page ties in with the content already present at Johnson solids?
TrangaBellam ( talk) 07:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ TrangaBellam Re:This is an encylopedia. I intended to write the definition of polyhedron briefly, and many other types of polyhedrons related to the Johnson solids which state "a convex polyhedron in which all faces are regular polygons." Without explaining them, it will cause more WP:TECHNICAL to understand, especially for the non-mathematics readers, per WP:ONEDOWN. Some of the mathematics articles in Wikipedia may have technical content, making the readers not understand it; take an example of wikilink the article Convex polyhedron, which redirects to the article Convex polytope, with its content focusing on convex polytopes in general and does not explain specifically about the convex polyhedron. You may look at the example of FL List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers, or GA Cantor's isomorphism theorem in which the technical jargon or terms may be listed in bullets.
- Re:Average reader knows what "volume" is. I was trying to expand on how the volume of a polyhedron could be obtained, but I haven't found the sources about it until nowadays. It could involve the dimensions (such as height, length, and width), or slicing it into different polyhedrons and then adding their volume up.
- Already presented in the article Johnson solid. As far as I'm concerned, the article Johnson solid itself explains the definition of Johnson solid, its naming, and their properties. I have no idea why this article is already disorganized into more tables. The article List of Johnson solids is solely a summary of that article, and it focuses on the list of all 92 Johnson solids. Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 16:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
List of Johnson solids
| Toolbox |
|---|
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this article to be FL-class. All of the changes before I substitute them to the original article are in my sandbox User:Dedhert.Jr/sandbox/1. I appreciate someone who wants to review and give suggestions for the sake of improvement. Thanks, Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 14:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: The article is very light on citations. The tables for surface area, volume, and inradius/circumradius/midradius, all lack inline citations and might be verging on original research, even though there is wording above to the effect that the info is taken from WolframAlpha. (This isn't to that I think the info wrong per se; however, for Wikipedia purposes, pretty much everything in articlespace needs to have a citation just as a matter of good practice.) In fact, the entire list article has no inline citations at all, just a list of two presumably-related books and several external links.
- I think you (@
Dedhert.Jr) should use the refs you've already found to cite as much as you can. Then, for the rest of the tables, I'd guess that you might want to cite a bunch of WolframAlpha queries to cover the rest? Other than that there might not be much one can do in the way of referencing.
Duckmather (
talk) 00:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I just added some citations to deal with the lead section. The body still desperately needs inline citations, which I'm not sure I can provide.
Duckmather (
talk) 00:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Duckmather It's all in my sandbox. I will implement it now.
Dedhert.Jr (
talk) 02:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I have removed the inradius/circumradius/midradius, which can only be found at a few smaller numbers of Johnson solids. I don't think we should add them, together with the graphs as well (see the talk article). Also, I removed the nets, which is already painful to draw them massively even though we do have a source. I do think that journals and books are more reliable rather than WolframAlpha.
Dedhert.Jr (
talk) 02:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Duckmather It's already over one week. Are there any comments?
Dedhert.Jr (
talk) 00:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- @ TechnoSquirrel69 The reviewer has already inactive in the process of reviewing over than three weeks. I would not expect that the @ Duckmather is AWOL at this point. Do you think I should find another reviewer here? Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 12:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- @
Duckmather It's already over one week. Are there any comments?
Dedhert.Jr (
talk) 00:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I have removed the inradius/circumradius/midradius, which can only be found at a few smaller numbers of Johnson solids. I don't think we should add them, together with the graphs as well (see the talk article). Also, I removed the nets, which is already painful to draw them massively even though we do have a source. I do think that journals and books are more reliable rather than WolframAlpha.
Dedhert.Jr (
talk) 02:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Duckmather It's all in my sandbox. I will implement it now.
Dedhert.Jr (
talk) 02:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've already listed this page at the unanswered peer reviews sidebar. If you know any particular editor who might be interested in reviewing the article, can can of course request them to do so. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 18:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @ TechnoSquirrel69 I'll see if I give a notification from WP:WPM. Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 13:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I just added some citations to deal with the lead section. The body still desperately needs inline citations, which I'm not sure I can provide.
Duckmather (
talk) 00:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
-
Comment:
- This is an encylopedia; not a textbook. Hence, we need not wax eloquent either on what is a polyhedron or on what is a convex polyhedron but simply link to the wiki-articles.
- An average reader knows what "volume" is; please do not define it!
- How does this page ties in with the content already present at Johnson solids?
TrangaBellam ( talk) 07:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ TrangaBellam Re:This is an encylopedia. I intended to write the definition of polyhedron briefly, and many other types of polyhedrons related to the Johnson solids which state "a convex polyhedron in which all faces are regular polygons." Without explaining them, it will cause more WP:TECHNICAL to understand, especially for the non-mathematics readers, per WP:ONEDOWN. Some of the mathematics articles in Wikipedia may have technical content, making the readers not understand it; take an example of wikilink the article Convex polyhedron, which redirects to the article Convex polytope, with its content focusing on convex polytopes in general and does not explain specifically about the convex polyhedron. You may look at the example of FL List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers, or GA Cantor's isomorphism theorem in which the technical jargon or terms may be listed in bullets.
- Re:Average reader knows what "volume" is. I was trying to expand on how the volume of a polyhedron could be obtained, but I haven't found the sources about it until nowadays. It could involve the dimensions (such as height, length, and width), or slicing it into different polyhedrons and then adding their volume up.
- Already presented in the article Johnson solid. As far as I'm concerned, the article Johnson solid itself explains the definition of Johnson solid, its naming, and their properties. I have no idea why this article is already disorganized into more tables. The article List of Johnson solids is solely a summary of that article, and it focuses on the list of all 92 Johnson solids. Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 16:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)