Talk:Penrose tiling/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wizardman 15:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC) After reading through the article, I found the following issues:[reply]

"Among the infinitely many possible tilings there are two that possess both reflection symmetry and fivefold rotational symmetry," The first part's just very confusing, not sure what you mean.

- Reworded. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Robert Ammann independently discovered the tiling at approximately the same time as Penrose." Seeing as how it only makes up part of a sentence further down, is this lead-worthy?

- Removed from lead. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Over the next several years, other variations were found, with the participation of Raphael Robinson, Robert Ammann and John H. Conway." I'd like to see cite(s) for their contributions into this.

- Reworded and provided cite for Ammann's independent discovery of rhomus tiling. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #10 (the one that uses geocities) is a deadlink.

- Removed reference and the sentence in which it was cited. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason for the P1, P3, P2 order other than the image comparison? I'm okay it with but it might confuse other readers as it would look out of order.

- Resequenced sections so that order is now P1, P2, P3. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Not more than one fifth of the paper deals with it but Penrose admits that the tiling was its real point." where does he state this? (cite)

- Removed. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The P2 section is unsourced. Granted, I know the more technical things are hard to source, and I'm sure it's not made up, but it doesn't feel right having an unsourced section in a GA.

- Added MathWorld source which describes the kite and dart construction. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Will review rest monday or tuesday. Wizardman 06:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through what needs cites (except the one point below) after the prose issues are fixed:

The L-system section needs a cite; I imagine one would suffice for all the info though. Same for deflation.

- The deflation construction is described in the MathWorld article; I have added a reference. Will look for a source for the L-system construction. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I can't find a source for the L-system section. Not hard to check it is correct, but that would be OR. So I have removed that section from the article. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Penrose tiling, the Fibonacci sequence and the golden ratio are intricately related and perhaps they should be considered as different aspects of the same phenomenon." The second part of this is a lil confusing. what phenomenon do we mean? Plus I'd prefer that this Fibonacci section be prosified.

- I have rewritten this section and added a diagram and sources. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put the article on hold now, as I believe we're getting close to a GA, just some more fine-tuning is needed. Wizardman 16:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing I'd like you to do as we wrap up: re-read the article again, and if there's anything that sounds like it should be reffed, then use something from mathworld and cite it. Lack of cites seems to be the only problem left, so I'll take a look through myself as well. Wizardman 17:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done with tagging cite neededs. Tried to limit them due to the complexity of citing quantitative math. If you have any issues with any of them let me know. I presume the mathworld ref could actually be used on most of those so there's not much to worry about. Removing the info would be a last resort here, I'd rather you didn't. Wizardman 18:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-I think I have now cleared all those tags and replaced with references. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i took a lot of work, but I think I finally feel comfortable passing this as a GA. Looks a lot better than when it started I think. Wizardman 17:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]