Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rubik's Cube/archive1

Rubik's Cube
It's a well written and full article and includes decent pictures.
 * posted by an anon, 09:37, Dec 17, 2004 --Spangineer &#8734; 15:10, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Good article, but I still object. I think the description of the game should be moved to the lead, since it's short.  Perhaps the patent information could be shortened or moved to another part to keep the lead moderately sized. Also, I'd prefer to see a picture of a new Rubik's cube at the top of the page, not one where the stickers are falling off. A picture of an opened Rubik's cube that displays the inner workings would be helpful for the Workings section. In the sections about solutions, why not explain some of the more common methods - solving the cube by layer versus by face (which way do experts do it?) or whatever.  More info on the competitions would be great - what the official rules are, how they work. And finally, I'm not sure about the group theory section - it's interesting, but not particularly accessible to someone who is just doing research on the game.  I don't think it's a good idea to have such a drastic shift in tone from the easy to read beginning to a mathematical section to an easy to read end.  Could that section be summarized and/or moved to another article? --Spangineer &#8734; 15:26, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah, Rubik's Cube, how you vexed me in my youth. Well, maybe the article could still use a little work, but I'm easily impressed by big numbers and formulas, so support. Everyking 08:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Note that I worked on this article in the past (am I eligible to vote then?) Sander123 10:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've been cubing for about 3 monthes and can get it in about a minue, cubing is so horribly addictive, its like happy cocaine which is why I love this article and am in a state of full support
 * Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Wouldn't mind a few more pics though. Such as a tournament in progress, or the suggested "inner workings" diagram.--ZayZayEM 01:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The lead section needs expanding. My suggestion is to give a brief one/two line summary of each different section in the lead section to flesh it out. It needs to have a "gee, isn't that interesting?" reader factor. Right now it doesn't! Once that's fixed, I'll most definitely support! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:47, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support if someone manages to get better images. like from this site . Those diagrams are horrible.--Alexandre Van de Sande 15:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 'Object. Bad lead section and the external links are improperly formatted. Neutralitytalk 21:53, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Lead section needs to be expanded a bit. Should be a summary of the article and discuss its importance. Just listing sales numbers (unatributed) is not enough.  Better pictures/diagrams would be great too. - Taxman 03:30, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. (1) I don't like the first two images. The drawn image looks like the perspective is wrong and the mention of a "diagonal tilt" is puzzling. The second image is of a rather worn cube on a distracting background. Surely someone has a mint-condition cube and can take a picture on a white background like ? (2) The article says "Ern? Rubik holds Hungarian patent #170062 for the mechanism". It should say when the patent was granted and when it expired. (3) The "workings" section needs a picture or diagram to illustrate the mechanism. (4) The "mathematical group" section suddenly goes into the first person plural. That's not Wikipedia style. (5) There's nothing about the history of the popularity of the cube, in particular the craze in the early 1980s. (6) The material on variants like the 2x2, 4x4, 5x5, 2x3, pyraminx etc should be broken out to a new section. (7) The section "A greater challenge" is rather confusing. Copyediting needed here. (8) The "Solutions" section should mention the number of orientations when face center orientations are considered significant. Gdr 13:28, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)