Talk:The Painted Skin/GA1

GA Review

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

@Kingoflettuce: you shouldn't have started this page, as one cannot start or perform a review for an article one has contributed to. I'm going to do a review for this article, though it is, strictly speaking, modern enough to be slightly outside my area of expertise, being a Qing composition, but that shouldn't be a big problem. I'll place my comments here when I have finished.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Review

• I think the "Plot" section is, overall, quite well done, good job.

I'm flattered. Thanks. Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• The article didn't have an infobox for its name, but I added it a few days ago.

Thank you. Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• "A Taiyuan academician": I'd change this to "an academician from Taiyuan", and consider explaining "academician" to non-experts who aren't familiar with that particular facet of Chinese scholastic traditions. It's a general rule of good encyclopedic writing that wikilinked content should still have a basic explanation if it is uncommon or esoteric.

I wikilinked it instead. That should do. Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Please re-order the "works cited" section properly (i.e. alphabetically)

Will do. I stupidly arranged it based on title! Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• In sinological scholarship, the general practice is to use parenthetical citations, though this isn't a hard and fast rule on Wikipedia. I recommend using {{sfnp}}.

Yeah, I'm more used to Sfn. If this isn't mandatory I'll let it be. Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Put the "History" section either first (or possibly second, immediately after "Plot").

Took reference from other short story GAs regarding section sequencing. But will do. Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Your current use of the {{zh}} template is somewhat messy and distracting as it currently stands. Since this is a pre-modern work, I recommend using only Traditional characters in the text, which will clean it up a lot. Additionally, I now go with the more standard format: "English term" (zhongwen 中文), remembering to wrap the characters with {{lang}}.

Will do, you seem to have done most of it already though :)

• Try to get a few more good images. There should be some from old publications of the LZZY.

Ugh.. the best I've been able to get is the one from the 1886 illustrated version (already present in article). It's hard finding things with proper info (date of publication, etc) It's most likely PD but don't wanna/can't assume. As it stands, is illustration adequate? Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Some of the works cited are of questionable reliability. The most egregious is probably that "Changing Skin" paper, which has no cited author and appears to be self-published, at least judging from the linked version of it. I am also suspicious of the Varma book, though you only use it once. Why not just use Minford for that like all the rest in that section?

It is from Sarah Dodd's PhD thesis. (University of Leeds.) Reliability is present. I have added the author. Varma just republishes the Giles translation (returned my copy so couldn't get page numbers from THAT). And it is phrased more excitingly than Minford. But I shall change it to a Minford quote since I have that. Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That's all for now, I'll re-check after these are fixed. I think we'll be able to pass this one soon. Consider working on the actual Liaozhai zhiyi article after this one, it's much more notable and visible.  White Whirlwind  咨  08:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Very much appreciated. I have much to learn... The Liaozhai article is my penultimate goal at least in this topic. Shall save the best for the last! :) Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@White whirlwind: Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't ping reviewers, it's rude and annoying.

We need to get at least one more image and some better-quality sources. The use of Sarah Dodd's Ph.D. dissertation is not ideal, since we avoid using Ph.D. dissertations unless they are well known and widely cited (see bullet #3, WP:SCHOLARSHIP). I would like you to look at Mair & Mair (1989) and see if they include any commentary on the story: Victor Mair is probably the greatest living non-Chinese sinologist, so there's really no excuse not to at least consult him on a topic he's treated. Also, we need to fix the Giles citation to show that it's a re-publication, Giles' original translation was published in 1878. I think it would be nice to move Pu's quote to the "Themes" section, quotes are a nice replacement for images. Otherwise I think we're pretty close to passing this.  White Whirlwind  咨  05:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, thought it'd be courtesy to ping you, lest you have to keep checking back. Will get things done soon. Kingoflettuce (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually WP:SCHOLARSHIP gives a lot of leeway for PhD dissertations if I'm reading it correctly. Would think it's still RS. I am unable to access Mair & Mair -- all the online links I've found thus far are nothing but scams. Rubbish! And my library does not have it. Best I have is Minford. How am I to show it's a republication? Just add a parentheses (republication)? Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The key phrases are: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources." (emphases added)

I am very loath to use unpublished Ph.D. dissertations as sources, except ones that are famous, like Jerry Norman's one on the Jianyang dialect when one is doing Northern Min stuff. There aren't many of these, since they usually end up getting published as books later on, such as Shaughnessy's one on the Changes. I don't have Mair & Mair (1989) in my electronic database, surprisingly, but my local university library does, so I'll go check it out for you. I'll also fix the Giles citation.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I checked Mair & Mair (1989) today, it's simply a translation - albeit a very readable one - with only a short preface that the Mair brothers didn't even write. It has one sentence on "Huapi": "“Painted Skin” is one of the most famous of his stories, and the words “painted skin” have become a synonym for duplicity that wears an outwardly human face but is inwardly demonic."  White Whirlwind  咨  04:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks White Whirlwind. Page number please? Looks good for addition. Or is it okay without it? How I wish I owned a copy of mair and mair too. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Page x. I'd add it in the lead and in Themes/Influence (can't remember what you've called it).  White Whirlwind  咨  01:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

CopyVio Detection Test Passed.  White Whirlwind  咨  22:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Result

The article now is sufficient to meet the general Good Article criteria. Its greatest weakness, in all honesty, is the subject's relative lack of notability in English. I suspect that this may be an issue for a future Featured Article nomination. However, I think it is acceptable as a Good Article.

I hereby close this GA Review with the result: Pass .  White Whirlwind  咨  23:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Indeed, but such a weakness is beyond my control -- if it is true, that is. Wouldn't that be a case of foreign-lang bias? Admittedly such topics receive less coverage here. But they are all worthy of being GAs and FAs all the same! As long as the correct sources can be dug up. I would think the bigger problem is my lack of time and competence to find all of those... Anyway, thanks for the review once again! :) Kingoflettuce (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)