Talk:69 (number)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 19:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Dedhert.Jr (talk · contribs) 04:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Will do my best to review it, whether it is a pass or fail. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Some comments:

• MOS:BOLDLEAD describes the usage of boldface in the title's name. I do think that it is redundant to use it in the later section. (GACR1b) Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Fixed. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 18:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• In mathematics: I wonder whether you could merge the first two paragraphs since they mentioned the concept of number theory. Also, I think the article needs more explanation of the technical terms; for instance, explaining what the lucky numbers, the aliquot sum, and many more are. (GACR1a) Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Merged (in fact I changed the formatting a bit to put the less notable facts lower) and I explained all the technical terms. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 18:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• I have looked up that the sources mostly contain OEIS, which intrigues me to check whether they are reliable. It was already been discussed, but I would probably ask again. We do have some notability, specifically about the individual number. As well as the OEIS, some sources may not be considered reliable, such as Numbers Aplenty. (GACR2b) Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Replaced Numbers Aplenty with RS sources. As for the numbers, I was going by which ones already had Wikipedia entries, so I excluded any redlinks from the page (like D-number or alternating number, both of which 69 is). I think the ones I kept are fairly relevant to certain fields, albeit sometimes more specialised ones. I used OEIS quite a bit because it is easy to find citations for 69 being a specific number of those sequences; a lot of sources mention the proofs but do not state that 69 specifically is apart of those sequences. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 18:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Wells' The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers does not mention the digits of both square and cube of 69, It rather mentions some properties of the number 11. (GACR1b) Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Ah, I meant to cite page 100, which lists the squares and cubes of various numbers! Fixed. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 18:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• By the notability above, is there any background of using 69 in other fields, other than in sex position? Also, I think the section may be expanded a little bit instead of hanging the link list of highways numbered 69 alone. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Okay, so there is no notability policy for this so this is what I went with: in my view, I wanted to only include entries that 69 was very relevant to. For instance, I removed the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower because its registration (CVN-69) seemed too unimportant to the ship overall, and nobody would call the ship just "69". I excluded TV channels, administrative divisions, postcode etc. simply because there are far too many around the world with the designation 69. I did include thulium because atomic numbers are very well-documented and widely-used in chemistry and science, i.e. chemists might often refer to thulium as "69" or the "69th element". The same logic applies for the astronomy terms; while Hesperia 69 is called Hesperia, it may be referred to as just "69" in the right contexts, i.e. on maps of space objects, databases, etc; same applies for the other astronomy terms as well. Using the same logic, ASCII numbers are very relevant in the fields of computing, the Web etc. as computers run on numbers. Although, regarding the Zodiac and Canadian Football League, upon further consideration, I have actually removed the references to them as they did not seem relevant enough. However, the aforementioned is just my view; seeing as we have no policy on this, I would appreciate any thoughts or suggestions you might have on this in order to further improve it. :) ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 18:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

    Oh, wait. I did not see something about notability above. So I am going to retract it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

So far, I think that is all for today. Other than those criteria I mentioned (GACR1a, GACR1b, GACR2b), the article is broad in its coverage (GACR3), and it is neutral and stable (GACR4 and GACR5). It does not have an image for its illustration, but GACR6 mentions it whenever possible. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna So far so good. I think one problem before passing this article is the infobox, containing bunch of numeral systems. MOS:INFOBOX says that the purpose of infobox existence is to summarize whole article, making the provided short information at a glance. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr: I added the stuff from the infobox to the article; is that better? ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 04:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna What I meant here was the infobox that may summarize the article, not adding something into the article that fits the information from the infobox. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I am dumb but I still do not understand what you mean. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 04:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna Oh wait, nevermind. I did not see the body explains multiple of numeral systems. Sorry! Forget about it! Anyway, everything is fine. Passing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Forgot to mention there is no plagiarism suspected [1]. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)