Talk:Pentagonal pyramid
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pentagonal pyramid is currently a Mathematics and mathematicians good article nominee. Nominated by Dedhert.Jr (talk) at 01:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article. Short description: Pyramid with a pentagon base |
Height formula
editThe correct formula for height should be: H=a*sqrt((5-sqrt(5))/10) or an equivalent. Rich K. - 16:41, March 9, 2009 216.204.69.138
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Pentagonal pyramid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Dedhert.Jr (talk · contribs) 01:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Randomstaplers (talk · contribs) 20:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for reviewing this article. Before that and in the middle of that, I had several minor changes, for which I have to apologize for some inconvenience and aftereffects. Have your seat and be at peace with it. Checkpoint oldid starts here: [1] Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I'll start...
- Yeah, it'll probably take a while for me to search through the library to verify sources.
- In the meantime, I'm looking through the mathematics MOS, where it encourages including "historical motivation" in the lead section. Out of curiosity... have you been able to find anything historical besides the 14 references in Complex Polyhedra...?
- By the way, the ref from Çolak et. al currently leads to a 404.⸺(Random)staplers 05:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Re "Colak et. al 404": Added URL that shows the actual doi, although it seems to be not found anymore.
- Re "Complex Polyhedra": I am not sure what this is. A book source? A journal academic? I have looked up and there are no sources mentioning that title. Can you tell me more specifically? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Re "Historical motivation": It says when appropriate. That does not mean every article has them. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I'll start...
- Hi @Randomstaplers, @Dedhert.Jr, what's the status here? -- asilvering (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Asilvering waitin' for the reviewer. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Asilvering I'm still in the process of skimming through library books. (As well as Playfair's and Hilbert's book that I still have to go through.) Might take a while as the only reviewer, unless anyone else wants to add something in the meantime.——Randomstapler's alt 20:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- GA reviews are typically only handled by one reviewer, so it's unlikely anyone else will step in. -- asilvering (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
|
- Adding a comment. There is a GA at Fiveling on particles of various sizes with five-fold symmetry. I think there should be some mention of this for wider context, although these are based around pentagonal bipyramids with some additional features. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Ldm1954 The fiveling are using the pentagonal bipyramid, and we already have that one the wikilinked article. I don't think this topic may bring to the pentagonal pyramid is a good idea. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am not going to insist, but at the same time I am going to disagree, particularly for a GA. There are far too many articles on Wikipedia which start with "In physics", "In chemistry", "In mathematics" and similar. This is putting science into boxes, which might seem right but is deeply flawed; science is Venn diagrams not boxes. An article on pentagonal pyramids written where the #Applications section is 2 paragraphs of geometry and a token on chemistry of Pentagonal pyramidal molecular geometry IMO is not the best, and as an encyclopedia we should try and do better; currently this articles is in a geometry box with the lid firmly closed. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Ldm1954 I understand your meaning here. But there are some other articles may use "applications" to include the polyhedron usage in different fields. For example, square pyramids are used in the building of Egyptian pyramids, construction of polyhedron, and stereochemistry. This is the same way for the triaugmented triangular prism. In some cases, I wrote polyhedral articles, using "appearances" section to include a polyhedron's appearance in ancient times, applications in different fields, and popular cultures. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am not going to insist, but at the same time I am going to disagree, particularly for a GA. There are far too many articles on Wikipedia which start with "In physics", "In chemistry", "In mathematics" and similar. This is putting science into boxes, which might seem right but is deeply flawed; science is Venn diagrams not boxes. An article on pentagonal pyramids written where the #Applications section is 2 paragraphs of geometry and a token on chemistry of Pentagonal pyramidal molecular geometry IMO is not the best, and as an encyclopedia we should try and do better; currently this articles is in a geometry box with the lid firmly closed. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Ldm1954 The fiveling are using the pentagonal bipyramid, and we already have that one the wikilinked article. I don't think this topic may bring to the pentagonal pyramid is a good idea. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Adding a comment. There is a GA at Fiveling on particles of various sizes with five-fold symmetry. I think there should be some mention of this for wider context, although these are based around pentagonal bipyramids with some additional features. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Placing on hold, awaiting improvements.⸺(Random)staplers 03:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)