Wikipedia:Peer review/Rubik's Cube/archive1

Rubik's Cube[edit]

This was nominated for Featured Article last December (see nomination). It got 6 support votes and 6 object votes. Many of the objections have been resloved, including adding pictures of clean Rubik's Cubes, expanding the lead section, etc. I'd like this article to be prepared next time it goes to WP:FAC. Coffee 15:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An in-line reference is preferred all the time. :-) (PS Well, I'm all at sea about the maths...) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The mathematics of the Rubik's Cube should probably be indicated by a {{solution}} label, plus some other minor hiccups. Other than that, I'll immediately support it as an WP:FAC --JB Adder | Talk 03:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Very good read. ~~Try nominating again for FAC.~~ However, we need to improve the messy external links section and expand the inline references. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple of very minor alterations. What struck me when I first looked at the article, however, were the images: there are three very similar images clustered together at the top and then nothing until the "see also" section. I'd be happy to do away with at least one of them, and just have one Cube at the top of the article. (The "Rubik's Cube with a tilted side" would be my personal preference.) I can't see that any specific attempt has been made to address the issues which were raised in the 2004 nomination, either. In particular, I'd love to see a picture or a diagram to illustrate the "workings" section; and the "mathematical group" section is still written from the first person plural. Also, would it be helpful to link to b:How to solve the Rubik's Cube, somewhere? (This was recently transwikied to wikibooks.) And the article seems to lack much of a discussion of the cultural impact of the Cube, especially in the 1980s... a bit more content in "history", perhaps? Otherwise, a bit of a tidy-up in the "external links", it's not far off. Flowerparty ^talk 01:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may be difficult, but would it be possible to make the mathematics more accesible to the average joe? As it is, you might have some trouble getting it featured; one guy complained in my Carl Friedrich Gauss FAC that the math was too technical, and Raul refused to promote it untill I explained every single theorem in layman's terms.Borisblue 08:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic images; a major improvement over the last FAC. I like all three of them, though it might be better to move the one with the tilted side to the Solutions section and give a caption "The Rubik's Cube being solved" or something. I also still think that a dissected cube would be really interesting to show. The "Rubik's Cube as a mathematical group" section still sounds (and looks) like a graduate level paper. I'd also suggest moving the Patrick Bossert reference to the history section, I think it fits better there. Inline citations would be a real plus, and please, cut down on the external links. One or two online/software simulations is enough, one or two solution pages, the official records page, only one link to speedcubing.com, and maybe one link to a patent website. 8-10 links would be more than enough. --Spangineer (háblame) 14:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think that math stuff goes over everyone's head. I'm not sure what to do with it. Coffee 05:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just took the easy way out. I moved the section to a separate article and left one sentence in the article with a link. I then combined that sentence with the stuff on physics and renamed that section. Does that work for everyone? --Spangineer (háblame) 17:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a good solution. Flowerparty ^talk 18:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: at this point, some discussion about the link to Rubik's Cube as a mathematical group broke off on to user talk pages (mine and Spangineer's). I've brought it back here. Flowerparty ^talk 19:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a photo, or diagram, of a disassembled cube. Some artwork patterns (alphabet characters, checkerboard, etc.) might be nice, too.--J-Wiki 00:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]