Talk:Snark (graph theory)

Untitled

I am not sure about application of snarks to four color theorem. Kuszi 00:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Today I added two snarky mathematical uses, the four color theorem and the four flow conjecture. See [1] for the diff. I got this info from page 141 of Reinhard Diestel, Graph Theory, Springer, 1997, ISBN 0-387-98211-6. dbenbenn | talk December 25, 2004

Tutte conjecture

One of two cases from proof of theorem that every snark has Petersen graph as a minor was published here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.4352.pdf. Proof of second case was still "in preparation" at November 2015. --Miteusz (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Snark (graph theory)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 21:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll take this review. On first look, I see very few issues needing attention. One suggestion to start out - I think the two sentences on computational complexity might work better under "Properties" than as a single-line section. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• From my perspective (someone with a decent math background but not much graph theory), Infinitely many snarks are known to exist could mean "we know of infinite snarks already" as well as the intended meaning of "Our theorems prove that there's an infinite number of snarks". Might be worth rewording.
• The lede could use an extra sentence or three - it doesn't mention anything from the history and conjecture sections.
• Tait's name is given with middle name in one location, and without in another.
• Consider linking the subsequent proof of the four-color theorem to Four color theorem#Proof by computer
• also demonstrates that all snarks are non-planar. needs a source
• Add link to Commons category

Moved complexity into properties, removed "are known to" in the part about infinitely many snarks to make the wording there more direct; added a little more to lead. Used Tait's middle initial rather than the full name or omitting the initial. Linked 4-color proof. Added a source that explicitly connects the Appel–Haken proof to the nonexistence of planar snarks. Commons category linked in external links section. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks great! Happy to pass now. Should you take this to DYK, please indulge my inner 12-year-old and include "arbitrarily large girth" in the hook ;) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·