Talk:Tangram/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: RDBury (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the nomination is premature since there are some issues that are easy to spot. First, many of the sources are self-published websites; more reliable sources should be found for GA status. Second, the article should be checked more thoroughly for factual accuracy; I found an obvious error in one of the captions and the statements about tangrams being used in a Chinese proof of the Pythagorean theorem seem like OR synthesis. (The special case applicable here can be proved with a very simple dissection of four pieces, so it's hard to imagine that the Chinese would prefer one with seven pieces instead.) I appreciate User:S8333631's efforts to improve the article but more work is still needed.

I'll try to remove all the self-published sources. The bit about the pythagorean theorem is presented as an unproven theory, which it is, but is definitely a viewpoint; That statement is sourced to a book by a well-known expert. Secondly, which caption did you say had the factual inaccuracy? I'll remove it if I see it. By the way, sorry about the late response, I don't entirely understand this system yet. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 17:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, sources done, and I've rephrased the pythagoras bit slightly. I still can't find the caption problem, though... ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 17:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm setting the GA status to On Hold. Overall the article is well referenced and well written but there are some issues that should be resolved:

1. As mentioned above, the whole Pythagorean theorem connection seems very speculative and I'd suggest removing it from the article altogether unless there is a reliable source can be found that makes a definitive statement about the connection.
2. More generally, the Origins and Etymology sections have several sentences that use the words "could be", "some suggest" or similar phrases. Mere hypotheses are not encyclopedic and should not be included in the article. It is apparent that the history is uncertain before the early 1800's so I'd say state just that and carry on with the history from the 1800's forward.
3. I didn't find any readability problems but I did tag the Trivia section as an MOS issue.
4. There are still some questionable sources used. Specifically archimedes-lab.org, newsfinder.org, and cff.helm.lu appear to be either self-published or user written sites.

I've fixed some simple issues myself and made some other changes.--RDBury (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I got rid of the trivia section, it was fairly crufty, and got rid of all the speculative stuff. The one thing I disagree with you on, though, is the thing about archimedes-lab. Per [1], they seem to have high enough editorial standards for use as a ref. I'm dealing with the other self-published sources, too. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 16:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC) ...and done. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 16:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Updated the status to 2nd opinion requested. I've probably done too much on it to remain unbiased and the last outstanding issues (e.g. arc-lab) should probably be decided by a third person.--RDBury (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: RDBury (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion by Nsk92

I had a quick look at the article and my impression is that it is quite far from satisfying the GA standards in its present form. If I were reviewing it from scratch, I would have gone with a straight "fail" rather than "hold".

• In terms of breadth of coverage there appear to be significant omissions (and I would have failed the nomination on that basis alone).
  • In particular, as a quick googlescholar search shows (e.g. this one[2]), it looks like tangrams are and/or were widely used as an educational tool for teaching math and art to elementary school children (and maybe even pre-school, I am not sure, that does require further research). There would certainly need to be a section on that.
  • The History section deals only with two relatively brief periods, 1815-1820's and 1891-1920's. Is there really nothing else of importance to say on the matter? Did anything of interest happen after 1920s? I would suspect so...
  • Are there significant examples of uses of tangrams in art (other than children art education)? Again, I suspect so. Any significant tangram contests/championships etc? (Again, it seems that there are some, e.g. [3]). Popular computer games using tangrams? Any other example of significant use in popular culture?
• The writing is choppy and awkward in a several places. E.g. "very fashionable indeed", "The number is finite, however", plus a bit of an overuse of "It", particularly in the lede. The entire "Paradoxes" section is written in a fairly cryptic way; in particular, it needs to be made clear that the tangram paradoxes are based on optical illusion. I think this section really needs a good image to illustrate what is being meant by a tangram paradox, but the image currently included in the section does not do a good job in this regard.

I have not looked into the issue of sourcing raised in the review above, but it seems to me that the breadth of coverage issues alone require considerable extra research and extra work to resolve. Therefore I would just go with a straight "fail" for the current nomination and wait for a re-nomination after the breadth of coverage issues are addressed. Nsk92 (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Since no improvements or further comments occurred for over a week since my last post, I am closing this nomination as "failed". The nominator and other users are certainly welcome to renominate again, once the issues raised above have been addressed. Nsk92 (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)