![]() | Sudoku Cube was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 17, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 September 2008. The result of the discussion was keep and move. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
"Is it possible to link searches of "sudoku cube, sudoku kube, and sudocube onto this page? This new toy is known by many names as of late." -Kyle
Someone gave me a Rubik's Cube and an electronic Sudoku game for Christmas and I wondered if anyone had ever combined them. I was thinking that a 9x9x9 'Sudokube' would be a little hard to solve. :-) 69.141.232.16 02:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
"This makes solving the cube slightly more difficult than a conventional Rubik's Cube because each number must be in the right place and in the correct orientation."
I'm not sure I follow. I thought that the Rubik's Cube was designed in such a way that there is only one possible combination that corresponds to a correctly solved cube - i.e. the orientation of the squares is always the same on a solved cube. 217.155.20.163 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I placed a cleanup tag on this article. The description of the cube makes very little sense. Is the orientation of the numbers significant or not? What's a "cubie"? Jargon and slang should be avoided. Who produces this cube? It says it's harder than a Rubik's Cube, but why -- and says who? Oh yeah, the whole thing is completely unsourced. 67.168.67.136 15:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
This article was once located at Sudokube. I moved the article because during the AfD it was discovered that the Sudoku Cube is the better represented product while the Sudokube appears to be a minor copy (based on sources found). Bill ( talk| contribs) 17:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Anybody? :) http://mspaintadventures.com/?s=4&p=001087 .froth. ( talk) 05:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: It is a wonderful world ( talk · contribs) 19:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: David Eppstein ( talk · contribs) 23:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
This is an interesting subject, with enough news coverage to appear at least superficially notable, and detailed article content. I am however worried by the amount and reliability of sourcing, so that's where I will start this GA review. I strongly suspect that the article is very far from meeting the Good Article sourcing requirements, and that this nomination should be quick failed ( WP:QF #1 and WP:GACR #2b) but before doing so I want to give the nominator a chance to respond.
In more detail:
Many sections and paragraphs are completely unsourced. All paragraphs (that do not summarize later material) are required to have a reliably published source. In the version I reviewed, the five subsections of "Objectives" are entirely unsourced. In "Variations", the paragraph with "Horowitz created two more Sudoku products" is unsourced. Most of the paragraph "Computer simulations" is unsourced.
Overall assessment of reference reliability:
That leaves only two usable sources, the 2007 Associated Press story and the 2008 Pawlyna story.
Lead section and general:
Production section:
Marketing section:
Objectives section:
Variations section:
Solving technique:
Computer simulations:
Do you think it is possible to turn up enough reliably published sources (for instance, in-depth coverage of this puzzle in puzzle books from major publishers) to rescue this article, within the normal time frame of a GA review (nominally one week)? Otherwise, if it has to be stubbed down to only the content that can be sourced to the two good sources, I don't think it is going to pass WP:GACR #4, and maybe we should just close the GA review now. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Sudoku Cube was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 17, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 September 2008. The result of the discussion was keep and move. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
"Is it possible to link searches of "sudoku cube, sudoku kube, and sudocube onto this page? This new toy is known by many names as of late." -Kyle
Someone gave me a Rubik's Cube and an electronic Sudoku game for Christmas and I wondered if anyone had ever combined them. I was thinking that a 9x9x9 'Sudokube' would be a little hard to solve. :-) 69.141.232.16 02:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
"This makes solving the cube slightly more difficult than a conventional Rubik's Cube because each number must be in the right place and in the correct orientation."
I'm not sure I follow. I thought that the Rubik's Cube was designed in such a way that there is only one possible combination that corresponds to a correctly solved cube - i.e. the orientation of the squares is always the same on a solved cube. 217.155.20.163 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I placed a cleanup tag on this article. The description of the cube makes very little sense. Is the orientation of the numbers significant or not? What's a "cubie"? Jargon and slang should be avoided. Who produces this cube? It says it's harder than a Rubik's Cube, but why -- and says who? Oh yeah, the whole thing is completely unsourced. 67.168.67.136 15:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
This article was once located at Sudokube. I moved the article because during the AfD it was discovered that the Sudoku Cube is the better represented product while the Sudokube appears to be a minor copy (based on sources found). Bill ( talk| contribs) 17:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Anybody? :) http://mspaintadventures.com/?s=4&p=001087 .froth. ( talk) 05:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: It is a wonderful world ( talk · contribs) 19:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: David Eppstein ( talk · contribs) 23:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
This is an interesting subject, with enough news coverage to appear at least superficially notable, and detailed article content. I am however worried by the amount and reliability of sourcing, so that's where I will start this GA review. I strongly suspect that the article is very far from meeting the Good Article sourcing requirements, and that this nomination should be quick failed ( WP:QF #1 and WP:GACR #2b) but before doing so I want to give the nominator a chance to respond.
In more detail:
Many sections and paragraphs are completely unsourced. All paragraphs (that do not summarize later material) are required to have a reliably published source. In the version I reviewed, the five subsections of "Objectives" are entirely unsourced. In "Variations", the paragraph with "Horowitz created two more Sudoku products" is unsourced. Most of the paragraph "Computer simulations" is unsourced.
Overall assessment of reference reliability:
That leaves only two usable sources, the 2007 Associated Press story and the 2008 Pawlyna story.
Lead section and general:
Production section:
Marketing section:
Objectives section:
Variations section:
Solving technique:
Computer simulations:
Do you think it is possible to turn up enough reliably published sources (for instance, in-depth coverage of this puzzle in puzzle books from major publishers) to rescue this article, within the normal time frame of a GA review (nominally one week)? Otherwise, if it has to be stubbed down to only the content that can be sourced to the two good sources, I don't think it is going to pass WP:GACR #4, and maybe we should just close the GA review now. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)