Talk:Annunciation Seminary, Bailu/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: The person who loves reading (talk · contribs) 19:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   Some grammar mistakes. However, grammar mistakes are fixed.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead sections summarize the article well. No words to watch are contained in this article. Layout is good.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   The reference section contains a list of sources.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   Not sure whether they are reliable sources or not. Through the explanation, sources in this article are all reliable sources.

   c. (OR):

   Checked some sources I can access. Sources verify he article text. No original research is contained.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   No copyright violation. Online tool result: 8.3% violation unlikely

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   Notable people might not be included in this article. However, other major aspects are covered. Through discussion, Notable people and cultural differences can be covered.

   b. (focused):

   No unnecessary details are found. This article is a short article, but covered the naming and history.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   This article is neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   All freely-licensed images.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   First and second images are crucial to the article. Other images are placed in the correct position, with suitable captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   This article meets all 6 criteria. I'm happy to pass this article. This article writes about one of seminaries in China, and covered all major aspects of this article, such as the history of the seminary, the destruction, and the protection. This article doesn't contain any more grammar mistakes for now. This article has no copyright violation, is neutral, and stable, according to my opinion and the Did You Know nomination of this article. This article's images are all free images, and are all necessary and crucial to this article. Images all have suitable captions. This article also follows the Manual of Style. I also check other similar good articles and find that they are all very similar. In summary, this article is a good article and should be listed. Thank you for bringing this article to good article status!

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Comments

• Grammar mistakes:

1. However, it was later named a Major Historical and Cultural Site Protected at the National Level of China, and despite being damaged in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, it was restored by 2016. "by" --> "in"
2. The seminary is known in many different names across several languages. "in" --> "by"
3. The walls were built by local bricks, but the beams, columns and other components were made of wood. "by" --> "with"
4. In 2004, the site's protection level was raised to the province-level. "province-level" --> "province level"
5. Gao Wei suggested that the complex could be turned into a cultural and recreational center, a philanthropic educational center, a historical museum, or return to its religious purposes. "return" --> "a return"

• Thank you. I have fixed these grammar mistakes. For #5, I fixed it to be "Gao Wei suggested that the complex could be turned into a cultural and recreational center, a philanthropic educational center, a historical museum, or it could continue to serve religious purposes." I hope this is all right. –TheLonelyPather (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! The person who loves reading (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Lead section:

1. Short description and English variety are recommended, but no need to add for good article status.

• Major aspects

1. Does notable people include in the major aspects of the article?

• Second opinion needed

1. Are sources in this article all reliable sources?

• I am happy to explain two major sources of my article: the "The investigation study of repair and protection about Lingbaoxiuyuan.Pengzhou" and "Les Missions de Chine et du Japon". The first one is a master's thesis on the repair and protection of this seminary from Sichuan Normal University in China. The second one is a 1917 review of the French missions in China and Japan published by the French Lazarists. I did not find any first-hand stuff from the priests who built / taught at the seminary, so the 1917 review is the closest thing I can find. –TheLonelyPather (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

OK. Through this explanation, I understand that sources are cited in this article are all reliable sources. The person who loves reading (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

2. Are Cultural influences and notable people needed to be covered?

• My personal opinion is that these two sections are not required but it is nice to include them. For example, in this article, a person from this seminary actually exists on the Chinese Wikipedia. It would be nice to include him there in the "notable people" section in case someone writes an article of him in English. As for the "cultural influences" section, it was just a random finding during my search. –TheLonelyPather (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! It would be nice if you can expand this section. However, this is not required because I checked other good articles but they don't include these sections. The person who loves reading (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It's better if this article contains a section about its significance (including cultural influences). However, it's not a requirement for the good article status. Just in case you want to promote it to featured article status. The person who loves reading (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.