Talk:Suoyang City/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 18:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	generally well-written and clear minor quibbles: the first sentences of 'Location' and 'City Ruins' feel directly repetitive of the lead. Find a way to rephrase? yangmacheng should be defined earlier, linked to an explanatory article, or else removed the explanation is good, but should come (at least in summary) at first mention Above addressed. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass. No issues found.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Relies heavily on sources 2 (Yao) and 3 (Li) - reliability of these sources must be verified. Otherwise good, all sections and important claims have citations Above addressed - see Zanhe comment below. Pass.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Pass
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass. No issues found.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass. All major areas of topic covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass. Good level of detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass. No issues here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass. Most work done January of 2019.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass. No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass. No issues.
	Overall. .	Pass.

Beginning my review of this page. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

First runthrough of review completed. Still some things I need to do. I plan to compare to other UNESCO Heritage Site GA's as a benchmark for assessing the GA criteria in this case. Need to do research on completeness and these Chinese-language sources. Overall, it's well on its way to passing! Ganesha811 (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Not many issues - but - the issues covered in 1a should be addressed. Review of Yao and Li sources was inconclusive - I'd like to see a couple more sources found to reduce the article's dependence on those two alone. Placed on hold for now. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Thanks for your detailed review. I've addressed 1a and added a couple of books, one of which (AFAIK the only published book about Suoyang City) is also written by Li Hongwei, who is the authority on the subject. Li is the former chief of the Guazhou archaeological department and worked on the site for 30 years. The site had been largely neglected outside the local region until recently. As a result, almost all works about Suoyang cite Li. The Li article is published in The Silk Road, an academic journal of the Dunhuang Research Academy, and the book I just added contains largely similar information with a lot more details and lots of pictures (unfortunately it's not available online). The Yao source is published by the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, so definitely reliable as well. After it became a World Heritage Site, Suoyang City attracted lots of media attention in China, but most of them are written by clueless journalists and cannot be regarded as reliable WP:HISTRS, so I don't want to include them here. -Zanhe (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Zanhe, Thank you for the detailed explanation. I'm completing my final review now, then, and I expect it will pass! Ganesha811 (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)