Talk:Kaktovik numerals/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 13:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Taking on this review. There are some clear immediate issues. The "System" and "Encoding" sections lack sources. One source is a youtube link, another has been tagged as failed verification. The lead references an image in a way it shouldn't per MOS:SEEIMAGE. The text feels choppy. This is especially prominent in the Legacy section, which reads as WP:PROSELINE. Most of the article refers to a single source, however that source seems a reasonable one for the topic at hand. Not failing this straight away as the topic feels generally well covered given the topic, and I will take a closer look at this soon, but the article needs some work. CMD (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The encoding section had an inline source. I've moved it to a fn.
 * I've had a go at some of the other sections as well, and asked about the calendar ref (which statement could be dropped). The YouTube link is indeed not a RS, but it illustrates concepts mentioned in the RS's that aren't explained very well in them, since they describe an active visual process better suited to video than to text. — kwami (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is already looking much better. I've shifted some images as at least on my screen they were distorting the formatting of the text.
 * The youtube video should be used as an external link, not a reference. Could Making the Old Way Count serve as a source, with its "As the  students  began  to perform mathematical operations with their numerals more and more, they discovered  that  the  symbols  were powerful enough to be manipulated as symbols. It is as though the symbol itself  is  a  kind  of  graphic  math  manipulative. When  the  class  began  to  experiment  with  division,  they  did  it  the same  way  they  did  when  dividing decimal numbers. However, a few students noticed that part of the process can be simplified because of the visual nature of the numerals they invented.Soon they had figured out how to do long division almost as though it was short  division.  Quite  frequently,  as students work with the numerals they have  discovered  shortcuts  in  math that cannot be done so easily with the Arabic numerals." ?
 * A bit more could also be done with the dictionary pg 832 (different edition to the one you used?) can be used to directly explain how the numeral structure ties directly into the linguistic structure of the words, which is only alluded to in the current article (the "System" section isn't clearly linked with the "Iconicity" criteria below it).
 * Regarding the drive-by tone tag added by the IP, I don't see anything egregious myself. I'll come back to it when I next look and remove it if I still can't find a tone issue and there's no further explanation.
 * Other GAN niceties: 3) The topic is quite small, and references are few and far between. This article seems to have a good coverage of what's easily available online. 4) Article appears neutral. 5) Article is stable. 6) Images are appropriately licenced. Putting this GAN on hold following further looking into it and given the improvements. CMD (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried to follow your suggestions. See what you think. — kwami (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Creative use of graphic substitutes. The issues I identified with criteria 1 and 2 are resolved, so I am passing this now. Thanks for the informative article. CMD (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for the tips. — kwami (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)