Possibly add a recommendation section?

[EngineerMama]

You mentioned being willing to add things...

The graphs are lovely, but someone who is new to FE might not be able to interpret them as to when would be a good reason to use one generator over another, which is a good multi-purpose generator (i.e. if you only learn one, this is the most useful...) You can certainly preface it with "IMHO", but a Recommendation section at the end of the ReadMe would certainly help the utility of the comparison.

[nschloe]

meshio is just a mesh format converter, not a generator. For the rest, it's just the good old "depends". Do you want a high-class mesh, or an easy-to-use scripting language? Do you care about angles or more about other mesh quality measures? Should the software be free or not? Etc. etc.

[EngineerMama]

My bad about meshio - so I fixed the comment.

"depends"

... Yes, exactly! It's the spelling out of possibilities that would be in a recommendation section, Like a table (and I couldn't fill it out because I am new and trying to figure out which one I should invest my time in learning).

Package | Free | User friendly (1easy - 5 hard)
Gmsh (via pygmsh), | Yes/no?| 1?
CGAL (via pygalmesh) |?
MeshPy, | ?
dmsh, |?
meshzoo, | ?
SeismicMesh. | ?

[nschloe]

Yeah, why not.

[krober10nd]

This is an interesting suggestion. At the end of the day, it really depends on what your downstream application is as Nico points out.

If finite elements is your thing, a good review of how mesh quality impacts linear finite element methods can be found by in:

https://imr.sandia.gov/papers/imr11/shewchuk2.pdf

This knowledge can help you, in part, make the decision yourself regarding what your meshing requirements are.