Talk:Extended Wulff constructions

Extended Wulff constructions has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 19, 2025. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Extended Wulff constructions article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rocks and minerals Low‑importance

	Earth sciences portal Extended Wulff constructions is part of WikiProject Rocks and minerals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use rocks and minerals resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Rocks and mineralsWikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsTemplate:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsRocks and minerals
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Polyhedra

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polyhedra, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of polygons, polyhedra, and other polytopes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolyhedraWikipedia:WikiProject PolyhedraTemplate:WikiProject PolyhedraPolyhedra
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Self citation disclosure

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article contains self citation by the original editor (Ldm1954) to the Modified Wulff construction. Other authors have confirmed the shape, and the name is commonly used. The original article contains 11 citations to this editors work (out of 84), and 1 of the current 8 figures is from the editors work. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

GA review

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Extended Wulff constructions/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Ldm1954 (talk · contribs) 16:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: I2Overcome (talk · contribs) 05:17, 12 March 2025 (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.	Fixed typos and split run-on sentences Various minor copyedits for grammar and clarity Ran AWB general fixes Prose is technical, but appropriately so for its intended audience. The lead effectively summarizes the article topic for a broader audience.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Added Wikilinks for terms where relevant Removed links from See Also that were included in the main text of the article, per MOS:NOTSEEALSO Removed unnecessary citations from three image captions (already cited in text) Per MOS:LEADCITE, removed two citations from lead paragraph that are found elsewhere in the article and not in support of direct quotes or controversial statements Article is well-organized and follows guidelines
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Named repeated references with AWB All references are listed and appropriately formatted
	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).	Article contains numerous inline citations, which appear to support all challengeable content (and the majority of the overall content) All sources are reliable, scholarly journals
	2c. it contains no original research.	The primary author/nominator (who is named as "Marks, L. D." in 11 citations) disclosed their self-citation on the article talk page. All of these citations are to scientific journals; the nominator is evidently a researcher in the field. Many of their papers were co-authored by other academics. These constitute a minority of the cited sources and do not meet the policy definition of original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No apparent copyright violations, 12.3% similarity from Copyvio
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article covers several different extended Wolff constructions, as well as limitations and applications
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Contains the necessary level of detail to adequately explain the subject
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No apparent editorial bias
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No history of edit warring, nominator wrote over 95% of the article
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.	No non-free content, all images are CC licensed
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	8 images, all appropriately formatted with captions, appear to support content
	7. Overall assessment.

Add topic