Talk:Nearest-neighbor chain algorithm/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tessaract2 (talk · contribs) 15:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I will be assessing this article. Tessaract2^Talk 15:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I moved extraneous info from lead to the background area, but this may require cleanup to work correctly.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	May require cleanup, as I have fixed the issue with the lead. Please proofread the "Background" area. Meanwhile, this will be on hold until 12/22/16 or I am notified.

@Tessaract2: can you please expand on the problems you see in the lead, that this change was supposed to repair? Because as I see it the change introduces its own quite severe problems both with MOS:LEAD and with sourcing.

I disagree with removing the last two paragraphs from the lead, and putting them into the background section. The lead is supposed to be "an introduction to the article and summary of its most important contents": it should contain text (frequently unsourced) that summarizes the content that is provided in more detail and with sources later in the other sections of the article, in effect providing a mini-article that would provide a reader with the main gist of the subject. That is exactly what those two paragraphs were intended to achieve. Without them, the lead section would contain no summary of the main points of the algorithm, correctness, analysis and application sections. It would violate MOS:LEAD, part of the GA requirements. Additionally, because those two paragraphs are unsourced (because they should be, as lead summaries of later content) moving them into a non-lead section would violate our GA requirements that all parts of the article would be appropriately sourced. Accordingly, I have moved the paragraphs back. Please reconsider MOS:LEAD, and what it says about the content of the lead section in the context of this GA review. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tessaract2: Hello? Are you still there? Can you explain your reasons for thinking that the lead's summaries of later sections were "extraneous" and counter to MOS:LEAD? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2016 (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.