Talk:Architecture of the Song dynasty/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Prose could use some work, but am unsure if it's that bad. The articles does however violate MoS. Specifically it violates WP:Manual of Style#Punctuation and inline citations & WP:LAYOUT as its unclear what are references and what are notations as specific references are listed as notations and books are listed below and seem to be almost "Further Reading".

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   added {{cn}} to stuff needing citations

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   City and Palace & Temples are missing info on how the Song period differed/improved those aspects. Maybe consider consolidating history into 1 section at the top. Also there is no info on the impact of the architecture on future periods.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. In general:
   1. all text should have English translations so its clear what to English reader what sources are (Having Chinese is still fine). Several have Chinese, but no English.
   2. "See below" should be replaced with actual reason, such as for most of them "Image is within the public domain" or something like that.
   3. "Own work" as source is not saying what the source is. Is it a photograph, if so then it should say the source is a "photograph of X". "Own work" descibes what "author" is intended for.
   4. GFDL & CC-By-SA-2.5, etc. should be spelled out. Do not assume anyone reading will understand the alphabet soup of abreviations. In addition it should breifly explain what those image licenses make them free to a layperson.
8. More specially issues are with (not being listed below does not mean the image is fine; every image needs improvement for copyright info):
   1. Bianjing city gate.JPG - Source (filenmae is not telling what the source is)
   2. 大梁门夜景.jpg; - Date for the former (if available)
   3. Pagoda Yunyan Ta.jpg - no source, consider using template
   4. Iron Pagoda d.JPG; Song Silang's Tomb Fresco, Northern Song Dynasty, Luoyang.jpg - source (url if fine to link to, but it should say what the original source is, ie pic from a book, etc)
   5. San Qing Dian.jpg - see "own work" above
   6. Zhaozhou Bridge.jpg - just has description - "Taken from English Wikipedia" is not a valid source
   7. Lu gou qiao.jpg - lacks almost everything, including the original source.
   8. Li Cheng Buddhist Temple in Moutain Detail.jpg - other than url, no real info
   9. Song-Imperial-Garden1.jpg - description only
   10. Song-Palace1.jpg - description only; linking to another image does not suffice
   11. Ma Lin 003.jpg - permission needs to be spelled out in the article; linking does not suffice
   12. Qingming Festival Detail 15.jpg & Qingming Festival 5.jpg - copyright info should not be linked inside permission field. It should be set aside seperatly and a text description is needed for that field.
9. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   a lot of the issues are minor and could easily be addressed so i'm holding this.陣内_Jinnai 04:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

   There has been some work on it so i can extend it.陣内_Jinnai 23:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

   While their was some effort at first to address some of the citiation issues and other info, much of the info, including the WP:FAIR USE tags remain an issue. There has been no activity in some time and therefore since I don't expect any improvement soon I'm delisting this article.