Talk:Bund Bull/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: Racepacket (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you for nominating this article. I enjoyed it. No disamb. or invalid external links.

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   "The bronze bull was crafted in"->"The bronze bull was fabricated in" - did the artist do the design work in Wyoming or just the casting at scale?

   "It is located in the Bund, which is considered to be a location that symbolizes the era of European colonial capitalism in China, and it will it adjacent to the Huangpu river in Shanghai's Pudong district, which is a dynamically growing economic development zone.[7]" - run on sentence. Typo for "be"? Colonial capitalism is POV. First say clearly where the work has been placed and then explain significance.

   Redundant - "the Bund Bull's male genitalia is rumored to produce good luck when stroked.[2]" - a bull would not have female genitalia.

   "Pursuit of this kind of good fortune has contributed to the Bull's needing to be cordoned off and guarded, unlike the Wall Street Bull.[9]" - passive voice. Say who identified a need to cordon off the bull, and then explain why the decision-maker changed his/her/its mind.

   There are two separate ideas here - stroking genitalia for good luck and climbing for prayer. Both may have prompted the need to protect the work. However, each must be separately sourced and explained.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Fn 1 and 7 require registration to access.

   Please note that fn 8 is a paid source.

   Fn 9 says the Bund Bull is twice the size as the Wall Street Bull. Article says they are the same size. Please explain. Fn 6 says it is twice the weight as the Wall Street Bull. Fn 2 says same size and weight as Wall Street Bull. Help.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article does not explain how and who commissioned this work. Did they ask for a replica or something distinctively different?

   Article states that 5 were cast. What happened to the other four?

   Explain why the work is not located in the financial district itself. Explain what relationship exists between the site of the work and the Expo grounds.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars.

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the article on hold so that you may address the above noted concerns. Racepacket (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. This subject needs some scholarly or higher quality sources to address some of the issues raised here. This article is not truly GA level and I can not move forward in good conscience given the depth of concerns raised without better sources. I greatly appreciate the extremely high quality review for such a marginal quality article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand. I hope the review will remain on the talk page to guide the future work of other editors seeking to improve the article. Racepacket (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2011 (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.