Talk:Admonitions Scroll/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The focus of this article is confusing and the article should be reworded to state the subject more strongly.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I will take me some time to go through the article in detail, however few initial observations:

I am a little confused about the article's focus: Is the article focussing on Admonitions Scroll - a Chinese narrative painting (which has two copies: British Museum copy and Palace Museum copy) OR just the Admonitions Scroll painting in the British Museum? Based on the answer, I can comment on GA criterion 3.

I agree, that is a little unclear, and it was something that troubled me as I wrote the article. The article was intended to be about the painting in the British Museum, but it is impossible to discuss it in isolation, especially as it has lost sections that are present in the Palace Museum copy. I do not see any need for a separate article on the Palace Museum copy, so I included information on the Palace Museum copy that I thought was necesssary to help understand the British Museum copy. I would welcome suggestions to improve the lead in this respect. BabelStone (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using the Palace Museum copy for explanation of the first three scenes is OK, but it was wordings like "The British Museum copy of the painting" that suggest the former. Change "The British Museum copy of the painting" to "the painting" then. Restrict the article to the British Museum painting. The current content about Palace Museum copy is sufficient: no more, no less. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organization: "Authorship and dating" is part of the "History" of the painting. I suggest you have 1 History section with subsections: Background, Authorship and dating, later history about circulation and Palace Museum copy. The last para of background, may be more appropriate in authorship.

Sounds like a good idea to me. BabelStone (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"a didactic text aimed at Empress Jia (257–300), consort of Emperor Hui of Jin (r. 290–301), whose violent and immoral behaviour was outraging the court." Emperor's or Empress' violent behaviour????

I will clarify that sentence. BabelStone (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reference for the translations of the poem? Add it after every translation.

The translation was my biggest obstacle to writing this article. I have been unable to find any English translation which is not under copyright, and Wikipedia guidelines would prohibit quoting the entire text under fair use. In the end, I was forced to provide my own translation of the text (which I believe I am competent and qualified to do). This may be considered OR by some, but given that many Wikipedia articles are translated wholesale from other language wikipedias, I do not think that translation is in itself original research. This approaach also has the advantage that other users and readers can correct or improve on the translation. BabelStone (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The translation will be considered OR here. Translating poetry is not a wiki-editor's work. Poem have puns, similes etc. which may mean different things to different people. You need to use an expert's translation word-by-word and attribute it to him as done in Ganesha#Aum. IMO, it qualifies per No free equivalent of . Can you find an old translation of the scroll, which is in PD? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that the translation may be considered OR. Unfortunately there is no PD version of the English text, and Wikipedia:Non-free content clearly states "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea ... Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." It may be that this issue is a show stopper, and the GAN will have to be failed. BabelStone (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider it "extensive" in this case. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is excessive Chinese in "History". suggest removal of it all, retaining only pinyin.

I will see if I can prune any unnecessary Chinese character. I like to provide the Chinese characters for the names of people for whom there is no Wikipedia article as that makes it much easier for readers to identify them and search for more information about them on the internet, but there is no need for Chinese characters where these are already given in the linked article. BabelStone (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is irritating for a non-Chinese to read (see) too much Chinese, which obstructs reading. Removing all Chinese except name of the painting. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wrong here. I will consider putting back Chinese characters that I think are useful, as many readers of such an article as this will know Chinese and find the Chinese useful. I haven't check the MOS yet, but I don't think that there is any prohibition against giving foreign language/script versions of names where appropriate. BabelStone (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a GAN issue, though a readability issue. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a ^{[citation needed]} in Makeup of the scroll and in the current History section.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me after all the reorganization is complete and these issues are settled. This article is on hold till 19th October. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I will not have much time for Wikipedia over the next few days, but I will let you know if I am able to resolve these issues by 19th October. BabelStone (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA FAIL --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]