Talk:The Raksha Country and the Sea Market/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 13:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Kingoflettuce, I've wrapped up my initial GA review. Only a couple of small things to be done. Great work on this article. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2020 (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.	Impressively, no issues to bring up. I'm going to go through it again, but this is very well-written.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass. No issues.
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.	Pass. No issues.
	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. No issues.
	2c. it contains no original research.	This is very nearly a pass. The second Note, however, about Giles being erroneous, may be OR. It's not harmful, but I think unless there's another source pointing out Giles' error, it should be removed. Agreed. Done Kingoflettuce (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass. No violations detected automatically or in a spot check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass. Thorough article. I wasn't able to find any significant aspects not covered in some searches.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass. No issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass. No issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass. No edit warring or other issues ongoing.
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 issue.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The lead image is good, though it doesn't need both "19th century" and "1886" - one or the other will do. Another image later in the article would be good - perhaps in the 'Themes and Analysis' section, relating to another one of the stories, or the anti-Manchu nature of the work? Amended captio . Given the obscurity of the topic though, I'm hard-pressed to find other relevant, free-to-use images. In the anti-Manchu example, are you suggesting the inclusion of a generic image of Manchus, or some other anti-Manchu material? (The lead image took me long enuf 😝) Kingoflettuce (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Would have included a pic of the Raksha as depicted in Hindu canon, but the Rakshasa main page doesn't even have one imge! Kingoflettuce (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Fair enough! Ganesha811 (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.