Talk:Luan Da/GA1

GA Review

I plan to review this article. I understand and agree with your comments regarding the criteria. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 03:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary Review by Robert Skyhawk

I have read the article, and have mixed feelings about its status. For one, there are numerous grammatical, spelling, and prose errors, which are as follows:

Note:Done and Not Done status reflect whether the issue has been fixed in the article. If you fix anything indicated below, you may change the status of the issue.

• Background section:
  • "early [I]mperial China" doesn't seem specific enough- a year range or dynasty would be much more descriptive.
    •  Done
  • "or perform ritual dances to perform supernatural actions." Use of the word "perform" twice seems redundant.
    •  Done - Rewording is better, I hope.
  • "The emperor Luan Da would eventually be employed by had killed the former court mystic, Shaoweng by poisoning, specifically by horse liver." This makes no sense; it seems like two sentences were accidentaly/improperly combined here.
    •  Done - I've explained and in fact changed the meaning a bit. I hope it's satisfactory now.
• Rise to power section:
  • "Emperor Wu also granted him a marquisate of some 2,000 homes to rule over. He was also given a luxurious mansions..." Again, use of also twice seems redundant.
    •  Done - Reworded.
• Fall from power and death section:
  • "Emperor Wu grew suspicious sent officers to track him down." Should be "grew suspicious and sent"?
    •  Done
  • "They found that he was living Mount Tai" Should be "They found that he was living at Mount Tai"?
    •  Done

Allow me to give my remaining critique using this checklist: GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   As mentioned above, there are several errors here.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I am not sure if this article has enough information on its subject to adequately satisfy this criterion.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   These criterion are invalid since there are no images in the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am unsure of whether this article meets some of the criterion, and so am putting this nomination on hold. Editors are now encouraged to edit the article, improving the aspects I have critiqued. Once this has been done, please contact me on my talk page and I will happily reassess the article. Editors are more than welcome to use the checklist above to keep track of the improvement.

Thank you very much in advance, and I hope to be able to award this article the Good Article status it is very close to attaining. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 04:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the problems with the prose, and, furthermore, have given it a copyedit. I entirely forget about images when writing this; sorry. They might be difficult to find, but I'll try to find at least one relevant image suitable to the context. Yes, I am fairly sure the article is comprehensive - three secondary sources and the sole primary source have all been searched, and this article contains all the relevant information. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a single image to the article, which I think is an appropriate number, considering its length. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Second Review by Robert Skyhawk

Thank you for correcting these issues. I will now conduct a second review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The changes look good; perhaps a few minor things that I will change myself after this is through.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   I am impressed at the amount of books you used; I usually prefer these over the internet, but they are much harder to come by. Well done.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   The image is a nice touch, but the lack of an image would not have hindered this article's acceptance. Perhaps I was too vague about that. My fault. Anyway, good job on this image.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Congratulations: by my review, this article fits the good article criteria, and is awarded good article status. Well done to User:Nousernamesleft and all other contributors to this article. I will now proceed to award this article GA status and remove it from the nominations list. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 23:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)