Pular para o conteúdo

Conheça Walt Disney World

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Johnson solids/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Johnson solids

List of Johnson solids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time nominating FL, and I hope this meets all the criteria of FL. One reason I am nominating this for the featured list is because it is a complete list of Johnson solids, along with the surface area and volume, as well as the symmetry. As for the background for someone who does not comprehend mathematics, especially in geometry, the Johnson solids were in the list proposed by Norman Johnson, and he conjectured that there were no other solids, after which was proved by Victor Zalgaller. I think I can give three examples for the exhibition:

There are actually 92 of them, but I would not exhibit them a lot here. I hope this could be the next FL of WP:WPM, and it could be the first FL of sister WikiProject, WP:3TOPE. Anyone, including someone interested in it, can review this. Many thanks for the comments and suggestions. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remsense

Claiming a spot here, since I think it's a great article and I still want to properly go through it like I promised. Remsense诉 07:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo

@Sgubaldo. I think I have complete all of the suggestions above. Let me know if there are any remaining missing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, I'll have a full read-through later. In the meantime, I've added some urls/other missing author links myself. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and made some copyedits. Feel free to revert an edit you're not happy with it.
Here are some more commments:
  • The passage
    These solids may be used to construct another polyhedron with the same properties, a process known as augmentation; attaching a prism or antiprism to those is known as elongation or gyroelongation respectively. Some others are constructed by diminishment, the removal of those from the component of polyhedra, or by snubification, a construction by cutting loose the edges, lifting the faces and rotate in certain angle, after which adding the equilateral triangles between them.
is a bit confusing to read because I'm not sure what 'those' is referring to. I'm reading it as you attach the prism/antiprism to any of the first six Johnson solids, but it's not very clear.
  • Is defining area and volume necessary? I'm specifically taking about the sentences "An area is a two-dimensional measurement calculated by the product of length and width, and the surface area is the overall area of all faces of polyhedra that is measured by summing all of them. A volume is a measurement of the region in three-dimensional space." I understand you have to consider WP:TECHNICAL but perhaps you could just include how the volume and surface area are calculated for a polyhedron and remove the definitions themselves.
  • Is the sentence "one case that preserves the symmetry by one full rotation and one reflection horizontal plane is of order 2, or simply denoted as " also necessary? You already explain the group and this is just one example
Sgubaldo (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "defining area and volume necessary": This is on purpose to make readers (for non-mathematicians, students, or anyone who is interested in it) recap the meaning of area and volume. If it does not exist, readers may search them on the previous wikilinked. I am aware that one problem here is our articles is somewhat technical, making readers even much more confused. Take an example of Surface area, stating that "a measure of the total area that the surface of the object occupies". This is not only to help readers to understand the definition, but rather to give the meaning of the object specifically. Here, I wrote the surface area of a polyhedron specifically as the total area of all polygona faces. So to put it plain, this is intended to summarize them specifically about the polyhedron's characteristics. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern was more whether the sentences "An area is a two-dimensional measurement calculated by the product of length and width" and "A volume is a measurement of the region in three-dimensional space." were necessary, but if you think they are per WP:TECHNICAL, then I'm fine with their inclusion. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr Anyways, final comment on this part: "The volume of a polyhedron is determined by involving its base and height (as in pyramids and prisms), slicing it off into pieces after which summing them up...." – I'm slightly unsure as to what 'involving its base and height' means here. Could you clarify? Sgubaldo (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is just like saying that volume of a prism and pyramid is the product of height and its base, with an exception that pyramid is one-third of it. The inside bracket is meant to show the merely examples. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr, could you rewrite the sentence a little to clarify that? I think it's still hard to understand in its current state. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to say that volume of a polyhedron can be calculated in different way. Take examples as in the prism and the pyramid. The volume of a prism is the product of base and height . The volume of a pyramid is one-third of the product of base and height . From all of these examples, their calculation only involves the base and height . Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr. Thank you, I understand now; these will be my final comments then, after which I can support.
  • What do you think about tweaking the relevant part of the sentence mentioned above to something like: "The volume of a polyhedron may be ascertained in different ways: either by decomposing it into smaller pieces, such as pyramids and prisms, calculating the volume of each component, and then computing their sum, or......"
  • When you say "meaning their construction does not involve both Archimedean and Platonic solids", is that intending that it doesn't involve both Archimedean and Platonic solids at the same time or that it involves neither of the two. If it's the former, then it's fine. If it's the latter, I think it should be changed to "meaning their construction does not involve neither Archimedean nor Platonic solids"
Sgubaldo (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "tweaking": What? This means something different. My interpretation is that you pointed the polyhedrons such as pyramids and prisms can be defined their volume by decomposing it into smaller pieces.
What I meant about those facts is that every polyhedron's volume is different to finding them. One example that I already explained is involving the produvt of base and height. However, not all the volume of polyhedrons can be done in that way. We can see an example of Triaugmented triangular prism in which constructed from a triangular prism by attaching three equilateral square pyramids onto its square faces. To find its volume, we need to slice it off into a triangular prism and three equilateral square pyramids again. Finding their volume, and then add up the volume again, and the volume of a triaugmanted triangular prism is total of those. But this method is not working for sphenomegacorona, and the alternative way is by using root of polynomial, as described in OEIS. That is what I meant also in the previous copyedit. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "elementar": The definition by not involving Platonic and Archimedean solids was copyedited from the previous meaning in several articles of Johnson solids. However, Cromwell and Johnson gives different meaning, so I'm going to copyedited the rest of them. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgubaldo Update. This was already discussed after I changing the definition; you can see my talk page. Feel free to ask. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel really silly, I was misreading the sentence about finding the volume and couldn't see there were three different methods. The changes to the definition look good. There were a couple of minor prose issues I had, but to not enter a WP:FIXLOOP, I tried making the changes myself. Please do check and revert if you disagree with anything.
Support promotion, I hope this becomes one of the few mathematics-related FLs. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "": Not expert in symmetry here. As far as I'm concerned, the symmetry is explicitly stated in the source [2], consisting of identity and mirror plane, and this can be denoted as . Is there something wrong? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert either. What I was trying to say was that you explain the symmetry group with the sentence "The symmetry group of order preserves the symmetry by rotation around the axis of symmetry and reflection on horizontal plane", but then also go into specific detail about , which seems to be a specific case of . My concern was whether this was necessary, since no other examples of a symmetry group are explored in the article. Is it because it needs to be shown that is denoted as ? Sgubaldo. It is a mirror symmetry, merely. (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our articles says it is involution group symmetry, as it is shown in List of spherical symmetry groups,. The notation is in Schoenflies notation. If it's possible, let me ask this in WP:WPM to gain more precise meaning ensurely. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm happy with this part now. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "these solids". It means that the first six Johnson solids can be used to construct more new Johnson solids by attaching the uniform polyhedrons (as it is included in the article), and those constructions are already mentioned above, with some exceptions that snubification does not need them basically. Some of the Johnson solids cannot be constructed without them. I think I will fix this one, but I have to be careful my writing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I've made some minor edits here too and I'm happy with this part now. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Solid name becomes !scope=col | Solid name. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1 becomes !scope=row | 1. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 21:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Implemented them all. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

This is already 20 days, almost three weeks, and there are no responses from the reviewer. Pinging @Sgubaldo, @Remsense, and @PresN. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ping you with my last reply, but I supported above. Sgubaldo (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will have remarks by the end of tomorrow, apologies. Remsense诉 14:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense: Just pinging to see if you're still planning to follow up with a review. Ideally, a source review would be very much appreciated if you're at all familiar with the subject matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sending a ping again to @Remsense. Please at least just let us know if you're no longer interested in doing a review. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw, as I don't think I'm presently qualified for this. Deep apologies. Remsense诉 15:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense. That's fine. I merely waited for someone reviewed the article; otherwise, the nomination would start over again because of inactivity by reviewers. @Hey man im josh. Do you mind if you can review the article? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this isn't an area I'd be comfortable reviewing. One thing not to clear me, at a passing glance, is what verifies what's actually in the table? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh. Sorry, I can't comperehend your words. Can you clarify? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind @Dedhert.Jr. I was asking what verifies the formulas in the last column, but I missed that there was a reference in the column header. Though, if you were referring to the first part of the comment, I'm not comfortable enough with the subject matter to review it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh Well, I'm now worried that this nomination will expire. I am tired of repeating nominations in the same situation. I already saw this when I looked up the FAC. Should I ping members on related topics WikiProject, or are there alternative ways? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to share your nomination at a relevant WikiProject, but we're pretty patient with nominations. There are currently 8 people nominations that are older than yours and I promoted one yesterday that was over two months old. For a source review, I think someone from a relevant WikiProject would be excellent. Perhaps a message asking if anybody is a subject matter expert and could provide a source review at the nomination? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh That's a good idea. Thank you. But how long does the nomination will be expired? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hard established hard deadline. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. I have invited the members, but I doubt that some of them will ignore it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dantheanimator

  • "The points, lines, and polygons of a polyhedron are referred to as its vertices, edges, and faces[,] respectively" <- add in comma (shown in brackets)
  • "they do not share the same plane, and do not "lie flat"." <- I think the comma here can be removed
  • "the faces are regular and they are vertex-transitivity" <- from my non-expert understanding/reading of this sentence, I'm guessing it probably should be reworded as "the faces are regular and the vertices have vertex-transitivity"
  • "they are the Platonic solids and Archimedean solids, as well as prisms and antiprisms" <- the way I read it, it sounds like these are examples/types of uniform polyhedra right? If that is the case, I think a better way to word this sentence would be "A uniform polyhedron is a polyhedron in which the faces are regular and have vertex-transitivity; examples include Platonic and Archimedean solids as well as prisms and antiprisms."
  • Since the nationality of Zalgaller is mentioned, for consistency, "after mathematician Norman Johnson (1930–2017)" should be reworded as "after American mathematician Norman Johnson (1930–2017)"
  • "create two small convex polyhedrons" <- shouldn't it be "create two small convex polyhedra" since its plural?
  • "The Johnson solids satisfying this criteria are the first six—equilateral square pyramid, pentagonal pyramid, triangular cupola, square cupola, pentagonal cupola, and pentagonal rotunda—as well as the tridiminished icosahedron, parabidiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, tridiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, snub disphenoid, snub square antiprism, sphenocorona, sphenomegacorona, hebesphenomegacorona, disphenocingulum, bilunabirotunda, and triangular hebesphenorotunda." <- this should probably be divided up into at least a few sentences (e.g. keep it as "The Johnson solids satisfying this criteria are the first six—equilateral square pyramid, pentagonal pyramid, triangular cupola, square cupola, pentagonal cupola, and pentagonal rotunda" and then have the next sentence saying something like "The criteria is also satisfied by eleven other Johnson solids, specifically the tridiminished icosahedron, parabidiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, tridiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, snub disphenoid, snub square antiprism, sphenocorona, sphenomegacorona, hebesphenomegacorona, disphenocingulum, bilunabirotunda, and triangular hebesphenorotunda." (would be great to divide this second sentence more but I'm not sure what the best way to do that would be (maybe group them up by their Johnson numbers (e.g. "satisfied by eleven other Johnson solids, with [insert name] and [insert name] in the Johnson number range 60 to 70, [insert name], [insert name], and [insert name] in the Johnson number range 70 to 80, ..." (I didn't actually check the numbers for how many elementary polyhedra there are in each Johnson number range so don't copy my sample verbatim)
  • also, just a note, the reason I think some additional, probably not too helpful, text should be added to the above sentence is due to MOS:SEAOFBLUE
  • "in various processes" <- this might be completely wrong but would "through various mathematical procedures" be a better way to phrase this?
  • "Augmentation involves attaching them onto one or more faces of polyhedra" <- for clarity, recommend replacing "them" with "the Johnson solids"
  • "prism or antiprism respectively" -> "prism or antiprism[,] respectively" (add in comma)
  • "may be composed in a group, alongside the number of elements, known as the order" <- not sure if this is necessary/beneficial but would it be a good idea to rewrite this as: "may be composed in a group, alongside the group's number of elements, known as the order"
  • "In two-dimensional space, these transformations include rotating around the center of a polygon and reflecting an object around the perpendicular bisector of a polygon." <- also not sure if this is needed but might help to clarify whether the rotation and reflection are based on same polygon or they can be different polygons
  • "known as the axis of symmetry, and reflection relative to perpendicular planes passing through the bisector of a base" -> "known as the axis of symmetry, and the reflection relative to perpendicular planes passing through the bisector of a base" (add "the")
  • Consider adding a See also section with links to similar lists/articles (maybe Table of polyhedron dihedral angles?)

Well that's everything I have! The table looks perfect and the article is just overall really well done! Thanks for bringing this to FL Dedhert.Jr and excited to see this get promoted! :) Dan the Animator 21:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dantheanimator I have accomplished most of your comments, but not of them.
  • Re "in various process": to be honest, what I meant that is those Johnson solids can be constructed by literally attaching them. I think there is no guidance procedure of how to construct by attaching mathematically unless it describes the construction with Cartesian coordinates.
  • Re "in two-dimensional space": it was intended to describe the cyclic group and dihedral group in two-dimensional space, to understand the analogy symmetry in three-dimensional space.
  • Re "See also": I don't mind that, but I'm aware that the table has already had many problems if I looked at it. Will think about it later.
Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dedhert.Jr! Everything looks great now though for the See also, don't worry about choosing that article! I just spotted it from a cursory glance of Category:Polyhedra and thought it look/sounded similar to Johnson solids. Feel free to chose any article/list you know of with an English wiki article that isn't already linked in the article that you think would be helpful for readers interested in Johnson solids. If it helps, here's the link to the guidelines with tips for making see also sections. Many thanks again for your work on this list! Dan the Animator 06:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, almost forgot... I now fully support promoting this nom and think once its source review is completed, it should be ready for FL! Dan the Animator 06:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

support

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
fonte: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Johnson_solids/archive1
Marcações: