Talk:Isosceles triangle/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Fearstreetsaga (talk · contribs) 19:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The article was a good read. Here are my suggestions:


 * Terminology, classification, and examples
 * "isosceles sets, sets of more than three points in which every triangle is isosceles" Based on the definition provided in the reference, an isosceles set could have three points. This also does not make it clear where these triangles come from; consider rewording this to make it more clear that any three points in the set form an isosceles triangle.
 * ✅ —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Perimeter
 * "In the equilateral case (when the isoperimeteric inequality becomes an equality) there is only one such triangle, which is equilateral." Mentioning equilateral twice here is repetitive. We know the triangle is equilateral because we are considering the equilateral case.
 * ✅ —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Angle bisector length
 * "The 30-30-120 isosceles triangle makes an interesting test case" Remove the point of view
 * ✅ —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Radii
 * I'd recommend indicating that the purple line is the symmetry axis in the image, since it is referenced in this section.
 * ✅ —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In architecture and design
 * "so-called Egyptian isosceles triangle" Replace or remove so-called per MOS:Words to watch
 * ✅ —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * History and fallacies
 * "Others claim that the name stems" Replace claim per MOS:Words to watch
 * "but W. W. Rouse Ball claims priority in this matter" What do you mean by this?
 * ✅. Rewrote the pons asinorum etymology to focus on the actual theories of its etymology and avoid saying that vaguely identified people claimed things, and clarified Ball's claim. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Notes
 * "Some other sources claim" Same as above
 * ✅. This was the toughest one to handle, because I don't want to list publications in the references section (implicitly saying that they're good references to the subject) only to say somewhere else that they're actually not so good, and I don't think we need to point fingers at authors of discredited theories. But I found a recent and impeccable source (Clagett) who attributes the "some other sources" claim more specifically to "many of the early Egyptologists" so I went with that as a direct quote. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * References
 * The link to the article by Whitney Smith is dead. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've handled all the points you mentioned above. Anything else to do? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good. I'll go ahead and pass the article. Congratulations. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)