Talk:Biaugmented 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:Biaugmented triangular prism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Dedhert.Jr (talk · contribs) 09:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Ajheindel (talk · contribs) 01:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not an expert in geometry, but I will try and give this one a review. I will look through and verify all the sources and then gives some comments. I see Augmented triangular prism has already passed review, so I will refer to that as well for what was discussed there. Ajheindel (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Here is my initial assessment, see my comments below.

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.	See below
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good
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.	Good
	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).	See below
	2c. it contains no original research.	See below
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Good
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	good
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Good
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Good
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.	All media labeled correctly
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Media are very nice, explain topic well
	7. Overall assessment.

• For the line "By such a construction, it is composite", maybe this could be expanded. It is also not clear how the source supports this statement. Could you elaborate? Ajheindel (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• For the Application section I looked through the source (pp. 78–79, 420–423.), and it was not so clear where the subject is mentioned (i.e. biaugmented triangular prism). I know even less about chemistry than I do about geometry, so maybe you can enlighten me on that. It might be helpful to add more specific language if it is referred to something else in chemistry. Ajheindel (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I have made a specific paragraph for the explanation. I replaced the source with another one. To quoted the new source I cite for the sake of verification, "If there exists a plane that splits a convex regular-hedron into two regular-hedra, then the initial regular-hedron is said to be composite; otherwise it is noncomposite," and again, "It turned out that there are 149 composite polyhedra, and among them 75 are Johnson solids. Adding to the latter 17 noncomposite Johnson solids." Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks good, definitely more clear now. The source is better as well. Ajheindel (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Your edits have resolved the issues I had with the text. I will look over the Properties section and double check the values as described in the source. If I don't find any errors, I will close the review. Ajheindel (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  There appears to be a few errors in the properties section:

• The formula for the dihedral angle of a biaugmented triangular prism between two adjacent triangles is clearly wrong, but the angle is right (I would approximate as 144.74 instead of 144.5):

$${\begin{aligned}\arccos \left(-{\frac {1}{3}}\right)+{\frac {\pi }{2}}\approx 144.5^{\circ }\rightarrow \arctan \left({\sqrt {2}}\right)+{\frac {\pi }{2}}&\approx 114.7^{\circ }\end{aligned}}$$

• The angle fshould be 169.5 instead of 169.4 for:

$${\begin{aligned}2\arctan \left({\sqrt {2}}\right)+{\frac {\pi }{3}}&\approx 169.4^{\circ }.\end{aligned}}$$

Ajheindel (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I have recalculated it again. @Ajheindel. Apparently, the last three bullets are calculated from $\arctan({\sqrt {2}})\approx 54.7$. Fixed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I corrected the infobox values as well, I think it looks good now, I will close now. Ajheindel (talk) 18:41, 12 June 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.