Wikipedia:Peer review/Laozi/archive1

Laozi

Seeking feedback from peers as a first step, with the intention to submit to GA review later on. Thanks, ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Biography" section needs work. I would say that there are three topics to be discussed here:
- The earliest records, most of which come from Ssu-ma Ch'ien's Shih Chi who simply repeated what he could learn & threw up his hands in despair at the end, & anecdotes found in Chuang Tzu's book which are likely fictional.
- The various legends, providing the appropriate dates for their existence. Some may contina evidence of Lao Tzu's life, & some may contain evidence that their sources abused too many drugs.
- The scholarly opinions on Lao Tzu. Briefly dscribed, these boil down to the question whether he existed or not. I'm far more familiar with the arguments for Lao Tzu's existence -- it's far more popular in popular accounts of Taoism -- but the other side needs to be presented for balance.
I don't find the footnote/sources system that attractive. To be blunt, it looks like the worse possible combination of the MLA & Harvard footnote systems. Pick the system you like best & standardize on it. -- llywrch 00:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments don't come over as snide or overly negative. Improving this article is one of those things that has been on my to-do list for so long that it has somehow fallen off that list years ago; I would be happy to assist you in this. This is an important article (IIRC, it is one of the Wikipedia core articles), & getting it to FA status would be a great help to Wikipedia. -- llywrch 01:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments... and if you feel like helping out in fixing this article, that would be great. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Criticism is what we need, as it tells us what needs to improved. Is there anything else "off" about the article? Does it do anything that is notably "right", that could help provide guidance in improving the rest? Vassyana 08:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]