No-three-in-line problem has been listed as one of the Mathematics 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 27, 2021 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " Did you know?" column on December 15, 2021. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that one can place 16 pawns on a chessboard such that no three pawns lie on the same line?

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics Low‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

"In 1951, Paul Erdős proved the answer." Well, what is the answer? This is very irritating. N Shar 01:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:No-three-in-line problem/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eviolite ( talk · contribs) 01:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I'll take a look at this. eviolite (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2021 (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.	A few comments below
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

This was a nice read. I have some notes here (I didn't think any of these were too big of a deal, but they seemed a bit awkward):

• Lead: This might be more of a me problem, but "form a line" wasn't immediately clear; perhaps "lie on the same line" or just "are collinear" with the link would be better. The next sentence could also be clarified a bit (something like "must" instead of "would", and specifying "horizontal row").
  • Done. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Under "Small instances": in which two of the pawns attack each other in the middle four squares of the chessboard—the original source states that they must be on Q 4 (d4) and K 5 (e5), which I think is easier to understand (just saying two of them are fixed), and avoids the issue of having a reflection as a solution. Also, I am not sure if linking to each number of solutions is necessary as this problem is not relevant to the numbers themselves. A {{ OEIS}} link with the sequence may also be helpful (instead of just having it in the ref).
  • Both done. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Under "general placement methods": an example might be helpful for these in terms of understandability ( Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable#Add a concrete example).
  • Example added as an illustration. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Under "Greedy placement": but less is known about the version of the problem where all lines are considered—is this necessary or else can it be reworded? I imagine something like this is hard to get a specific reference for, and it seems implied by saying that the specific case has progress, so not a big deal but something to note.
  • Er. I guess I walked into that one. There is a specific reference, some specific progress, and more to say about how little is known for this case. It is a recent paper on which I am a coauthor, and so far only citable as a conference version (the journal version is in submission), which is why I omitted it and wrote about it only in vague terms in the article. But because you asked, I have added it to the article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• The applications and generalizations/variations sections seem more technical than the previous sections, but this doesn't seem to be an issue looking at WP:UPFRONT and WP:ONEDOWN (I am probably around the level of one below computational geometry and found it reasonable enough to understand).

Beyond these things that might do well to be changed, the article meets all other criteria, so I am putting it on hold for now. eviolite (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ David Eppstein: Thanks, everything looks good now (I've looked over the article again and didn't find any issues on a second pass; my last bullet wasn't really a thing to fix but I see it has been addressed anyway), so happy to pass this review. eviolite (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The example refers to a grid with 10 lines each way as a 10x10 grid. I would guess most people define a Sudoku "box" or a tic-tac-toe game in an outline as a 3x3 grid, yet they are composed of 4 lines each way. Is it standard to define a grid by the number of lines each way or by the number of pigeonholes created? Also, the pawns-on-a-chessboard problem obviously counts pigeonholes rather than intersections. Just wondering . . . Charles Fee ( talk) 04:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

It's standard, for mathematical treatments of this problem, to give the grid size as the number of positions available for points in each direction, and to put those points on integer coordinates (at the crossings of integer grid lines) rather than at half-integer coordinates (at the center points of grid squares). That is different from the original formulation of the problem, where the points (chess pawns) were placed at centers of chess squares, but it doesn't make any difference to the results for the problem. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

This problem of maximizing the size of a set such that no ${\displaystyle k}$ members have sone common property for some small ${\displaystyle k}$ sounds connected to Ramsey theory, should there be a link to Ramsey theory in a "See also" page? C7XWiki ( talk) 01:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply