Talk:Inscribed figures

From Math Images
Revision as of 20:54, 21 July 2011 by Rebecca (talk | contribs) (General Comments)
Jump to: navigation, search

General Comments

Kate 14:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC): The page is looking a little messy right now, there's a lot of text floating around in the top left. I think it's because you left your first couple of balloons empty?

Kate 15:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC): In general, this page needs a lot more actual geometry in it. The mosaic is nice to look at, and the Eye is kinda cool, but a page about inscribed figures should really have some classic geometry and proofs. For example, you mention that inscribed figures can be used to prove the Pythagorean Theorem - why don't you put that proof in?

Richard 7/6 Gave Dayo a hand getting the page started.

Kate 18:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC): Your main image is a little grainy - are there any higher quality images available? Or could you maybe make the image a little smaller?

  • Rebecca 01:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Nice work Dayo. This is a really good start to a page. I'd challenge you to finish this page by the end of the summer. You'll have to really commit your time to it because you're getting started late, but it is a great topic for an image page.
  • Rebecca 01:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Dayo and I discussed some ideas for this page on Wednesday. I won't write them, but to summarize: He is going to add more explanation of the London Eye example.

Section specific comments

  • Kate 18:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC): Typo! It is considered one of the finest examples of ceramic inlay,radiative geometry, and use of inscribed figures in art.
(you need a space between "inlay," and "radiative".)

  • Rebecca 00:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC) You need to add mouseovers for ceramic inlay, radiative geometry, inscribed.

Basic Description

Kate 14:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC):

  • An inscribed or "cyclic" figure is one which fits "snugly" into another larger shape;
Looks to me like you're defining "inscribed" and "cyclic" here, so to follow our established conventions for definitions, you should bold them:
An inscribed or cyclic figure is…

  • The separate subsection for "Applications" looks weird to me, maybe you should consider just having that be a second paragraph without another header.
  • It seems wrong to me to say that inscribed figures are a proof of the Pythagorean theorem, because it's an application, not a definition or necessary characteristic. I'd much rather it said that inscribed figures can be used to prove the Pythagorean theorem.
  • I really think this section needs some small pictures showing simple inscribed figures. Maybe three or four 150px by 150 px images showing like, a square in a circle, a triangle in a square, etc…

  • Rebecca 01:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC) This is a good way to start the page, but you should make a picture that is simpler and shows how a figured is inscribed. For example, a square with a circle inside. You could even cut this section out and just put this sentence in the mouseover for "inscribed" along with the picture.
  • If you don't decide to just put this section in a mouseover, it might be nice to expand on it a bit.

Kate 18:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC):

  • For a a breakdown of the image: see below.
Punctuation isn't quite right, try "For a breakdown of the image, see below:"
  • I know you're just getting off the ground, but make sure that when you write this up, you provide words to go with the pictures! Tell the reader what they're supposed to be observing.

More Mathematical Explanation

Inscribed Figures applications

"Example 1: constructing a star and The Walls of The Salon del Trono"

Kate 15:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC):

  • This section heading seems weird to me, I think it should be a subsection of "Inscribed Figures applications" not on an equal level. Also, there shouldn't be quotation marks around the header, and your capitalization is weird. I'd write: Example 1: Constructing a star and the walls of the Salon del Trono
  • You should proofread this section. There are a couple sentences that aren't capitalized, and there's one place where you say "orig" when I think you mean "origin".
  • Your explanation of what's going on in the pictures is pretty clear, but what's not clear is the connection to inscribed figures. You need to make a bigger deal of it at the start of the section, explicitly state that the picture was constructed using inscribed figures and now you're going to walk through the construction.

"Example 2: The London Eye"

Kate 15:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC):

  • Again, I don't think the section heading should be in quotation marks here.
  • I assume you're going to expand this section, when you do, make sure you explain what the Eye is, in case readers haven't heard of it, and try and find a picture of it to include. Also, it'd be great if you could tie this in to some geometry - are there any cool proofs that involve pentagons?

  • Rebecca 01:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC) You should remove the sentence "proof of pythagorean theorem using Ptolemy's Theorem. That's not what you're doing in this section. Instead, why don't you introduce the fact that you will construct a star using inscribed figures.
  • You need to add another paragraph after the one beginning with "example 1: constructing a star...". In this paragraph you can explain in more detail how the squares are inscribed. Then refer to the picture so that readers can see.
  • "At every place where the inscriptions’ extended edges meet the edges of the original rectangle, a point is made." What about if you change this to "Each corner of the inscribed squares touches the side of a larger square. At these intersections, a point is made." What you said originally isn't exactly true because the smallest inscribed square's corners touch the middle sized square's edges, not the original squares edges like you said.
  • You jump from an image where there are points on the edge of the biggest square as well as inside of that square to a new image where all the points are on the outside. You need to explain this transition and probably add more pictures in between.
  • There's no reason to label the points of the star and the squares if you're not going to refer to them. It just clutters the images.
  • I think you need another image to illustrate one ray connecting a quarter mark to the nearest perpendicular halfway mark. You should label these points and show a blue line going through them. Then you can jump to the images where you have all these blue lines and the star is generated. Also, are these lines actually rays like you said? Or are they just lines?
  • "Connecting the edges of the star with every other edge yields the outermost points of the central star." This doesn't really make sense. I don't think it's what you're doing actually. You're drawing lines from the points of the star to the intersections of the blue lines, right? When you're explaining the images, the best thing to keep in mind is that someone should be able to follow your directions and execute the step without the image. This sentence is too vague for anyone to be able to do that.
  • Nice images.
  • I'm excited to read about the London Eye (capitalize both London and Eye). This will be your second example by the way, not example three like you have written.