Wikipedia:Peer review/Scrabble letter distributions/archive1

Scrabble letter distributions

This is now a pretty solid and comprehensive list, but I thought I'd get some more feedback before applying for Featured List status. Soo 01:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• You should really get the full list of right characters for Arabic and Hebrew. Shouldn't be difficult to paste from other articles.
• The explanation in the Welsh sections are confusing at best. Could be simplified to something like "using letter combinations for the tiles X, Y, Z... is illegal".
• Circeus 02:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What order do the letters come in? They seem to vary from most freqent (in English, for example) to alphabetical (in Afrikaans, for example.) This should be consistent, at least. I'd prefer in order of frequency, since that tells us something we may not already know.--Cherry blossom tree 11:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Good suggestions so far; I've now done all of the above. Any more suggestions? Soo 18:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• The letter and count combination is quite hard to read. How about experimenting with some different formatting. For example: using bold and small letters:

• 1 point: E ×12 A ×9 I ×9 O ×8 R ×6 N ×6 T ×6 L ×4 S ×4 U ×4

If you decide to change the format, a good search-and-replace function in a text editor would make it straightforward to apply.

I've done this now, although I'm not convinced it looks good. What do you think? (I couldn't do it on the Arabic section for the reason discussed below.) Soo 21:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just experimented with a space between the × and the count. I think it looks better with the extra space. Perhaps you could try posting on some Arabic project/talk page for help with those letters. Colin°^Talk 21:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• The brackets in the Arabic section aren't paired - is this a typo? Colin°^Talk 16:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  They are actually paired correctly, but there seems to be some weird BiDi complication that causes most browsers, include Firefox and Opera, to display them wrongly. If you look at Opera's edit view then you can see them in the right order. I'm afraid I have no idea why this happens and no idea how to fix it. Does anyone else? Soo

  Now fixed, thanks to User:Plugwash. Soo 16:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think the table of contents is too long and distracting, but I'm not sure if there's anything you can do about that. :( Also, the internal links to outside sites are discouraged (I've been reading the Manual of Style!) so it's probably better to use footnotes and link to the sites in the references section. And it could use a few images - maybe you can use the ones on the Scrabble article? Another thing - are you sure it's accurate? How can we check the numbers? Anyway, it looks good. Sarah crane 20:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  Is the new table of contents better? Soo 21:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  That looks great! How'd you do that? I'll have to check it out. . .

  I disabled the default ToC and replaced it with a manual one. That makes it a bit more difficult to maintain the page but in this case I think it's worth it. Soo 15:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  I've also fixed the references up to something a little more authoritative. Soo 16:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• The details about special letters are neither consistently formulated nor placed.
  • Fixed. Soo 18:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Is the Esperanto distribution official?
  • Well spotted. Deleted. Soo 18:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Over half the listings do not give the number of tiles!
  • Fixed. Soo 18:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Circeus 17:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• A picture would be very nice. Maybe Image:Scrabble tiles wooden.jpg? Hmmm...actually, the license on that image apparently is not entirely compatible with GFDL. This would prove problematic when this article were to come to WP:FLC. So if you can fix the problems with the tag, go ahead. If you can find a better one (there's nothing worthwhile in the "Scrabble" category on Commons), please do include it. NatusRoma | Talk 09:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  I have tried photographing my own set (English) but the tiles are amazingly shiny so I either get glare or, with no flash, a dark picture. Perhaps someone more photographically competant can come up with something? Soo 09:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  Think I fixed it. The current photo isn't great but it's better than nothing. I'm working on photos for a couple of other sets too. Soo 10:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)