Talk:Proof without words/GA1

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

Hi there! I will be reviewing this article's GAN. I'm very concerned about the article's short length and failure to fulfill WP:GACR for not being broad in its coverage. Perhaps you could add a little more information about the history behind proofs without words. If you would take a look at this link and this link, you would find some information about the history of proofs without words. Use those sources as a starting point, and expand your new information by doing a little more research into this topic.

Furthermore, talk a little bit about proofs without words more in general. Why have they captured people's attention recently? What exactly is so special about them? Can they be considered proper proofs? You can see a short discussion of proofs without words here.

As you can see by the links I provided, a simple search of Google Books can give you tons of information about anything you want. Use it! I'm confident that this article can improve dramatically once you add a little more information.--Edge3 (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I am unlikely to have time to do much work on the article myself, but I have left a note at the WikiProject Mathematics talk page to alert other editors who may be able to contribute. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Does look a bit sparse at the moment. I'd have thought there were enough proofs of this type for a category which would reference illustrations of this type in other articles, for instance a proof of Desargues' theorem or some things from Visual Calculus if it is developed. And how about tools like Penrose graphical notation? Or a series of pictures like the Eversion of the sphere?There's also dynamic images which illustrate things which couldn't have been done in the past and of which there a whol;e host at the Wolfram demonstrations project. Dmcq (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm failing this nomination due to the lack of improvements made to the article.--Edge3 (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)