Talk:Binary search tree/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Vogon101 (talk · contribs) 14:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall article does not currently meet GA standard - the prose needs to be clearer, especially the lead section whilst the algorithms sections are in need of re-thinking. It is a good start with a lot of useful information and I encourage WikiLinuz to continue and perhaps re-nominate in the future.

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.	Overlinked in places (eg total order, binary tree, data structure). Prose is ok but clarity needs to be improved to meet standard. Use of "we" seems not to comply with WikiProject Computer Science MoS example Quicksort. Similarly algorithms expressed in simultaneously too much detail (see 3b) whilst still being unclear, with many not having discussion of time in the prose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead - too short, ~~no inline citation~~ and is unclear. Even to someone with background in compsci the first two sentences took me a couple of attempts to understand syntactically. It is not appropriate to simply have one block of pseudocode without explaination. Layout Words to watch
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.	Standard compsci concepts, sourced sufficiently
	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.	Yes, though perhaps expanding on the history beyond the infobox could improve
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article goes into excessive details - acts like a textbook, especially in Operations section I agree with Springnut's 3O that this section needs to be trimmed (if you'll pardon the pun) though not as much as suggested. Height can be removed, searching reworked, and more complex operations (eg. deletion) made clearer
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No opinion expressed
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Minor fight over inclusion of a source/resource in the talk page (last entry 14th Oct.) between MrOllie and User:WikiLinuz, more substantive discussions around contents of code, I think this probably stable by the GA criteria but not 100% sure
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.	Both images are tagged public domain from commons
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Relevant images with appropriate captions. Fig 2 could have more explanation/linking to the text (list is ordered 1-3) cases are (a-d)? Would improve with more images.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article fails standard at the moment. I think it needs changes that would require more than the standard 7 days of being on-hold

@Vogon101: Thanks for your inputs.

1b: The lead section doesn't include any inline citation because we usually don't include duplicate citations per WP:LEADCITE and WP:LEAD. And, I will split out the single paragraph lead into two, if that's better. Will also include a short explanation (or comments) for the pseudocode. The pseudocode by itself was descriptive, so I thought it'd be redundant.
3(5): We were having a discussion over the inclusion of a link. I was just curious why it isn't helping the article, so there isn't a fight :)

I will work on the points regarding the lead section, 1a, and pseudocode and renominate once it's done. Thank you for the review, again! Regards, WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 16:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah cool re 1b.

Yeah - I think 5 is probably a "yes" I just didn't say so given the comments on 1 and 3. Good luck with the article :) Vogon101 (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it some more here are my suggestions

For the lead section
- First sentence is fine but second makes no sense.
- Add some more motivation - why would someone use this data structure?
- Final sentence is weird on its own - either expand or remove
- A line on the history? Also the invented date and by in the info box look unsourced to me (I might be wrong though)
There is some overlinking as I said, that is easy to fix
Operations
- This is obviously the hardest bit to get right and I'm not 100% sure what the right level of detail is but I think my main current issue with it is that it feels like a grab bag of operations that are a bit unmotivated - perhaps expanding the first section is what's needed
- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_science/Manual_of_style#Algorithms_and_data_structures - this has some tips. I don't think you need all the operations: we're talking about mostly the implementation of a data structure. This is a bit nebulous but in this case the core ops are probably
  - Search, insert, delete
- Deletion is a tricky operation to understand* - it needs to be made clearer - especially the link with the diagram which is good but needs clearer linking imo
- Add comments to pseudocode - at least for deletion linking lines/functions to parts of the diagram or the order of steps above
- I don't know if succ, pred, height and traversal belong (happy to be disagreed with)
I think there needs to be a section on the implementation datatructure itself - something more explicitly practical in the definition section maybe?

* I remember having issues with it at uni lol

Feel free to ping me again if you want me to give it another look over (idk if I can review it next time but if I can happy to :) ) Vogon101 (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

::@Vogon101: The said changes were made. Please have a look and let me know if there are any remarks. I will nominate it for the GA once that's done. (Pinging you since you were interested in reviewing the article.) Thanks, WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 20:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any interested user is welcomed to give the GA review. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 04:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]