Talk:Augmented triangular prism

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Augmented triangular prism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Dedhert.Jr (talk · contribs) 09:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: OzmoOzmo (talk · contribs) 23:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Quick fail check

• Not a long way from meeting any one of the good article criteria.
• No copyright violations: assessment returned 0% similarity.
• No cleanup banners.
• No edit warring; the page seems stable.
• No previous GA reviews.

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The entire section on properties is not understandable to a broad audience. For example, what is two-fold pyramidal symmetry? This is not understandable to me, because the contextual link provided there is not understandable. The main equation (largest-appearing one) in that section is also not understandable to a broad audience (although I can understand it), but I am not sure how it can be made more understandable per WP:NOR. The bulleted list in the properties section was also missing periods, which I have WP:BOLDly fixed.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I do not have access to the non-open access sources used in citing sources, and the only open access source returns 400 Bad Request and 502 Bad Gateway, so I cannot verify there is no synthesization. I have checked the sources now that it does not return 400 and 502, and the nominator has fixed the sources when they did not verify a claim.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article needs some work with understandability. I am not providing a result of the review yet to give contributors time to respond to this review and improve the article. ozmoozmo@enwiki (talk:contribs) 23:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. Give me some time to complete the tasks. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@OzmoOzmo. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes? ozmoozmo@enwiki$t.c 10:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@OzmoOzmo. I have done some tasks you receive. Are there more? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, let me reread...

The section is now understandable to me. Anyway, I will now proceed with reviewing the one open-access source, which no longer returns 400 and 502. ozmoozmo@enwiki$t.c 10:57, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The open-access source does not actually mention rigid transformations. I used Ctrl+F with various terms: "rigid", which returned no results, "four" and "do" which returned irrelevant results only, "do-nothing" and "do nothing" which returned nothing. 180 returned only the 180th page. ozmoozmo@enwiki$t.c 11:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

You can see the group $[2]$, denoting the symmetry group $C_{2v}$, in Table 3, line 49. The "mention rigid transformations" is actually explain such a symmetry group is under WP:MTAU; see Cyclic symmetry in three dimensions for the article, or if you want to understand specifically about the symmetry ($E$ is identity or itself or do-nothing, $C_{2}$ means you rotate 0 and 180 degrees around an axis, $\sigma _{xy}$ and $\sigma _{yz}$ are two perpendicular vertical planes act as mirrors), thereby there are four ways to do. Since Table 1: Finite Groups on Isometries in $\mathbb {E} ^{3}$ only list $[n]=C_{nv}$, you can substitute $n=2$. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh. I don't know if this is WP:OR then; it may meet WP:CALC or not from your explanation. ozmoozmo@enwiki$t.c 02:03, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

CONVEX POLYHEDRA WITH PARQUET FACES does not actually mention augmented triangular prisms or augmentation. ozmoozmo@enwiki$t.c 02:15, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@OzmoOzmo. Two sources actually support two facts separately. Timofeenko's source mentioned the augmented triangular prism as a composite polyhedron; I have re-read it, which is not a good source for covering it, so I replaced it with Timofeenko's 2010 journal, quoting, "It turned out that there are 149 composite polyhedra, and among them 75 are Johnson solids. Adding to the latter 17 noncomposite Johnson solids.... Rajwade's shows the construction $P_{3}+M_{2}$. I have now added Berman's source, showing the construction as well, and the original name "augmentation". Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Replying properties section. I have added some wikilinks regarding surface area and volume alongwith some explanation. Breaking down the step-by-step to obtain a formula. The symmetry group $C_{2v}$ is based on source , usually difficult for me to apply the interpretation to the solid, probably need someone to gloss it in an expert way. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@LucasBrown has copyedited it. I appreciate it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr, please talk understandably in talk pages, especially review pages so that a non-mathematician can understand what you are saying. If you talk in a way that would violate WP:MTAU if this were an article, you are only making it harder for me to review, thus prolonging it. Thanks, ozmoozmo@enwiki$t.c 01:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

My bad. Let me verify my statement above, so you can understand.

• In Timofeenko's 2009 source, there is no mention anything about the composite polyhedron, so I replaced it with Timofeenko's 2010 source . The latter source verifies it, as I quoted in green.
• In Rajwade's source, it verifies the construction of an augmented triangular prism $P_{3}+M_{2}$. Here, $P_{3}$ refers to a triangular prism and $M_{2}$ refers to a square pyramid. So $P_{3}+M_{2}$ tells us a triangular prism attached onto its square face by a square pyramid. This produces an augmented triangular prism.
• In Berman's source, it verifies the construction similarly. It also shows the original name of "augmentation".

As for now, I removed Rajwade's source and use Berman's source instead. I rewrite Augmented triangular prism § Construction to make two separate sentences, each of which is supported by different sources. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, then that's good. ozmoozmo@enwiki$t.c 01:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I would say this is a  Pass. I will re-read the article first before promoting, to ensure I didn't miss anything. ozmoozmo@enwiki$t.c 02:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.