Talk:Paper fortune teller/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 18:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This short and entertaining article is carefully-written and fully-cited to good sources, so I shall have few comments to make on it.

I was expecting to see Martin Gardner mentioned as he loved all such enjoyably metamagical objects. The British Origami Society states that the Salt Cellar / Bug Catcher / Fortune-teller is among Gardner's models. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It says he only reproduced known folds, but I added this to the history section, because it predates the other US citations I found.
  - Searching for more led me to a web page with many earlier precedents, which I used to expand this section a little. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Many thanks, that's what I had in mind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'History' is not in chronological order. If there's no special reason why not, I'd suggest putting the second paragraph first (with a minor tweak to make the text work in that position) and merging the other two paragraphs.
- Ok, done. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the images appear to be correctly licensed.
I struggled a bit with the horoscope image, but [23] does verify the main text, and the image does illustrate the layout.
[16] names the colours and Bradley but not that it's the "Swarm" artwork. I think the claim needs an additional source.
- Ok, I re-added a Getty Images source I was using prior to replacing it with this source.
  - Yes, that does the job.
[7] works as a source via one of its images with caption. The last sentence in particular is verified by inspection of the image and a bit of induction. It would certainly be nice to have things sourced more explicitly, but on reflection I think this isn't a show-stopper.

[13] verifies the claim made. I'd add that the shapes are illuminated in red and yellow to give the required effect.

Other than that it's all good to go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.