Talk:Pseudoforest

message: In many ways, this is almost a good article. The illustrations are well-chosen, and the information is well-cited. The writing style is - except for the "but" that you no doubt no is coming - clear and well-written.
But there's no attempt to make this readable to a lay-person. If just a little bit more time was spent explaining terms, then this concept - which from what I gather is connection graphs that form rings, possibly with branches off them, but with not more than one ring in any connected parts of the graph - should be much easier to understand. You have good images. If you use them a bit better and highlight out the key parts, I think this article should make GA. Adam Cuerden talk 17:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, just leave me a note on my talk page when you want me to have another look. Adam Cuerden talk 17:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There was certainly an attempt to make this readable to a lay-person, but it's a fair criticism that those attempts were unsuccessful. Any specific parts you found even more difficult than the rest to understand? —David Eppstein 17:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we take the sentence A pseudoforest can be defined as a graph in which each connected component has at most one cycle. this is fine for someone who knows a bit about graph theory, but for the un-initiated, graph, connected component and cycle, could benefit from a little expansion, without having to visit links. --Salix alba (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And we should follow the normal convention in graph theory: define what graph means in this article (probably in a footnote) before we use it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not easy finding appropriate references for such basic definitions, compared with the more specific facts that were better-cited in the later parts of the article, but I added a few. I hope you're not one of those people who believe in peppering every sentence with one or more footnotes (see Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines) but I agree that they were somewhat lacking in that section. —David Eppstein 06:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ew, no. What I like, personal preference, is that when I read something interesting that I want to know more about, there is a citation. And as brought up before, such basic facts aren't that basic to all of us, and I have no idea whether you're making up the assumption or not (I don't think that, and obviously you're not). Thanks for addressing it. ALTON .ıl 20:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: Although this article is rather technical, I don't think that this is a bad thing. A certain "layman's introduction" can be added to the article, but this is not a problem for any of the GA-criteria. In my estimation, this is a good article. I have passed it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New GA review

message: The compution the pseudoarboricity is easily derived from the one of the maximum average degree, which is known to be computable in polynomial time by (Gallo, Grigoriadis & Tarjan; 1989) without help of matroid theory.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxipom (talk • contribs) 20:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoarboricity 

message: Gabow and Tarjan do not attribute the term "pseudoforest" to Dantzig, but to "J.-C. Picard and M. Queyranne. A network flow solution to some nonlinear 0-l programming problems, with applications to graph theory, Networks 12 (1982) 141-159." Indeed, the term pseudoforest or pseudotree does not appear at all in Dantzig book (he uses a notion of sl-tree).
pom (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the correction. I think I've fixed it; please check the changes for accuracy. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the term "pseudoforest" 

message: I made  to the beginning of the "Graphs of functions" section to point out that only endofunctions can be interpreted as directed pseudoforests. Are further changes needed? (ex. §Graphs of functions → §Graphs of endofunctions)?
67.252.103.23 (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphs of functions