Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Square pyramid/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Square pyramid

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve and expand the article and therefore has a status GA. This is the first time I would like to try to expand the article, and I have prepared the writing in my sandbox. Any suggestions or comments about improvement will be appreciated. Thanks, and regards. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dedhert.Jr, peer reviews are not done for sandboxes per WP:PR/RP. I'd recommend that you implement the changes that you've drafted in userspace to the main article so other editors can get a chance to take a look at them. Please check in here once you've done that, or this PR may need to be closed. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoSquirrel69 Thanks for the information anyway. I will implement the changes. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Done. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr: Awesome! I see that you're making some substantial changes to the article, so I think I'll be able to supply some comments after you're done. (But keep in mind I'm no mathematician!) Expect to see a review from me in the next few days. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for planning to supply some comments, although there have been some changes recently. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr: I've been checking in every once in a while on the article, but still see the {{In use}} tag on it. As I said earlier, I'm going to hold off on a review until you're done with your overhaul, so could you ping me here once the bulk of your changes are complete? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoSquirrel69 I think I have done some overhaul, and I have removed the in-use template. Would you like to review the article? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, I'll probably be around to review it tomorrow. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll be waiting for it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

[edit]

Alright, time for my review!

  • I think the technical phrase "1st Johnson solid" should be removed from the short description per WP:SDAVOID; an average reader is unlikely to know what a Johnson solid is.
  • There are quite a few grammar issues throughout the prose, too many to list here individually. I'd recommend taking the article to the Guild of Copy Editors, where other editors will take a look at the article and help clean up the writing. I've tagged the article with this in mind, but will still provide a few comments here for possible improvements in this department.
  • Every kind of square pyramid mentioned in the article doesn't need to be emphasized with bold text. Just the first mention needs to use bold per MOS:BOLDTITLE.
  • Per MOS:INFOBOXCITE, I'd recommend that you add a sentence and source for the vertex configuration in the prose. As of now, there isn't a citation in the article which directly supports that information.
  • "...an apex, a vertex where all lateral edges meet." What exactly is a "lateral edge" in this context? I think that needs a bit of clarification since the term is used a few more times later.
  • "arccos(-1/3) ≈ 109.47" Did you mean 109.47°? Same issue with the next expression.
  • Please read Help:Math for information on how to format math expressions. For example, fractions should use \frac or \tfrac.
  • "...a symmetry of order 8." requires further explanation.
  • "Here, b is the side of an isosceles triangle..." Did you mean b is the length of the side? Same issue in the same sentence with l.
  • For the surface area, it might be worth showing one intermediate step that makes it clear that we are adding together four times the area of a triangle and the area of a square, then show it in its simplest form.
  • I have made some changes here. I clarified the area of a triangle and a square. I also changed the formula and rewrote the formula algebraically. Is there anything missing about this one?
  • "The ancient Egyptians already knew... managed to find that formula." Is this sentence corroborated by a source?
  • The part that Egyptians already knew the formula is correct. However, I'm not sure about how they managed to obtain the formula. Another source that I found is JSTOR, which states the relation between the volume of a truncated square pyramid and the volume of a square pyramid by Egyptian in the papyri. I'll try to think about how to rewrite this part, as it is somewhat difficult for me. Any suggestions may be appreciated. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally fine if you want to discuss this point in more detail, but saying that we don't know how the ancient Egyptians derived a formula seems like original research to me unless there's a source that explicitly mentions that. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I have fixed this problem about the fact Egyptians knew the formula of volume of a (complete) square pyramid, and this is already cited in the citation Cromwell on page 20–22. If this claim remains not supported with one citation, I will add one more using the source I gave this earlier. @TechnoSquirrel69, let me know if there is something missing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stereochemically active lone pair" is another technical term that needs explanation.
    Umm... does it actually helpful to give wikilink some technical part here? I also have done some copyedit here. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really necessary that the article mentions every Johnson solid that can be derived from a square pyramid?
  • This is intended to give more examples of how a polyhedron can be constructed by attaching the base of a square pyramid onto the face of another polyhedron. An example is a triaugmented triangular prism, which can be constructed by putting the base of three square pyramids onto the square faces of a prism. Let me know if you think this is superfluous, or some suggestions for improvement in this part. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • When using citations from the {{sfn}} family, the full source should be taken out of the footnotes and put in a list in the references section. I'd recommend reading Help:Shortened footnotes for information about it.
  • Umm... Thanks. I understand that all of the full citations should be taken out of the footnotes and put in a list section. Frankly, there are some good articles about mathematics that use both full and short citations, an example of them is Prime number. I thought this violates WP:CITEVAR, or do I need more understand more about this guideline? I think I'll deal with this later. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I could be more clear about what I was specifying here. It's not a violation of CITEVAR for an article to use a mixture of short and full citations, there are many featured articles that have those as well. However, when clicking on the link in a short footnote, the link shouldn't be pointing towards a full citation which is itself in another footnote. The full citation should be moved into a list and every page referenced from that source should use {{sfn}}. If there are no {{sfn}} links pointing at a citation — for example, because only one page from that source has been cited — it's up to you whether you want to leave the full citation in the footnotes or move it out to the references list. Does that make more sense? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. If that is the case, I will keep the full citations in the footnotes. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general note for improvement, I really think you should read WP:MTAU and rewrite parts of the article in the spirit of that guideline.

And that's about all I have for today! Dedhert.Jr, feel free to reply to the comments in line. Good luck, and let me know if you have any questions about my comments! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll start finishing the tasks one by one. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoSquirrel69 I think I have done most of the tasks here. However, the only remaining problem is about the "pyramidal symmetry, a symmetry of order 8"; despite some sources mentioning only it has point group. As we both discussed earlier in the talk page, I will ask someone for help to clarify this technical problem. Let me know if you have more comments for the sake of improvement of this article. I will take it to GOCE later after all of these problems are resolved. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoSquirrel69 I have clarified that technical phrase problem, assisted with another user at the WP:WPM. Will waiting for your other comments. Thank you. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything in particular you'd like me to comment on further? As far as I can see, you've done pretty good work addressing my comments above, and I suppose all that's left to do is request a GOCE pass. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoSquirrel69 Got it. Thanks. Just one more thing: I am worried about the architecture section, which only mentioned the Louvre Pyramid and Luxor Las Vegas, but not the actual characteristics, specialty, or any background about the building. Should I have to expand a little more on this one? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on how well that particular point is covered in reliable sources. As I don't normally contribute in either architecture or math areas, I don't really know where you could go looking for something like this; but if you happen upon something useful, then throw it in! As the section stands right now, I don't feel like there's any important information that I'm missing as I read through it. There's probably also a case to be made that getting into the fine architectural details for each example could be straying from the subject of the article. If you end up taking this article to GAN, you can ask your reviewer about it, as they might have more background in these subject areas than I do. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see, then. I guess I will take this article to GOCE. Thank you anyway for the suggestions above. Wish me luck! Dedhert.Jr (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Square_pyramid/archive1&oldid=1183583710"