Talk:The Mongol Khan/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: Frzzl (talk · contribs) 18:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I'd like to take this one on.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  18:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Frzzl! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

No problem - I've added comments. If you fundamentally disagree with any of my proposed rephrasings, just say so - they're simply some personal preferences.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  20:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries Frzzl; all should be responded to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Lovely jubbly; the inclusion of the photo of the theatre is a very nice choice. Passing!  Frzzl  talk; contribs  20:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Review

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

   Lede

   Could we mention the approximate time range of the Xiongnu Empire? The lay reader would have no clue when it existed. - F

   Synopsis

   Well written, not too long/appropriate level of depth. - F

   Cast

   I've seen several sources mention the fact that it has seventy cast members, with seven lead actors - I think this is probably worth mentioning, separately from the information about the size of the theatre company. It would allow you to remove the "Source:" bit of text below the list as well. - F

   History

   With no images to break it up, the sheer number of paragraphs here makes it a little harder to read. Could you add some subheadings? Perhaps split in three: with the headings "China" and "London"? - F

   Even though only one member is fluent in the language; is -> was

   wikilink soft power

   I think that "of the United Kingdom's recognition of Mongolian sovereignty" flows a little better than the United Kingdom recognising Mongolia's sovereignty.

   Reception

   The reception of the London production varied from positive to negative. feels a little odd and strung out. Perhaps "The London production was met by a mixed response from critics" or something or the sort?

   issues with the flaky plot -> "flaky", missed from quotation marks.

1. Overall, not all bad! Will be happy to pass the article once the above queries have been adressed.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  20:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig brings up only quotes, so passed for copyvio. The references section is well formatted, so no issues there either. A few primary sources have been used, but in context, there appears to be no issues with them.

   6 spotchecks, randomly taken:

   ref 2) Passed for verifiability and copyvio (not that you really could)

   ref 5) Passed for verifiability and copyvio

   ref 9) Passed for verifiability and copyvio

   ref 10) If Google Translate is serving me well, no problems with copyvios, and it confirms the prose

   ref 13) Passed for verifiability and copyvio; well-written, I like the simplification to "mammalian"

   ref 18) Passed for verifiability

1. Very nice! - F

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Well focused, well sized, and covers all the major aspects of the play. Summary style is used well, the synopsis is not excessive. - F

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article is overall neutral. The Reception section is nicely balanced with reviews - all opinions are clearly marked as such. - F

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Only issue would be the adding and deletion of images, but that is resolved and several months passed. - F

5. 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): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Only image used is a promotional poster for the play, which is appropriately tagged as Fair Use and at a fair resolution. The promotional photos have been deleted, so no issue there. - F

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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.