Talk:Black Slave's Cry to Heaven/GA1

GA Review

Passed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 00:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 08:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a fascinating article! I typically prefer to make less-complex prose edits myself, but of course if you disagree with any of those changes or want to discuss, feel free to reverts. I look forward to reviewing this article! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... I'm done already! This was a very smooth article to check and all of the GA criteria are amply met. Since I did make those light copy edits myself (and none of them were really crucial to the GA prose criteria, if you want to contest them) I actually have no changes to request! Great work -- I will pass it now! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

Images are great, and all public domain. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig picks up a lot of quotes and titles but everything looks good vis-a-vis copyvio. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read through the prose and made a few edits for flow/clarity, but I have no major concerns -- well done contextualizing everything so concisely, I felt like I could easily understand all the details even though I know very little about this topic. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For my source check, I will look at sources 5, 19, 24, 29, 36, and 37, as numbered in this diff.
- 5, 24, 29, 36, and 37 verify the cited content without close paraphrasing/copyvio.
- I added back in the word "xiqu" from the quote in 19, because I think it's useful to be specific like that rather than glossing as "performing arts". On reflection, it might be smoother to phrase it as traditional Chinese [opera] instead of how I have it (traditional Chinese xiqu [opera])... feel free to change it to that, or just change it back, depending on your opinion.

Overall, that was a very smooth source check! Thanks for including the page numbers -- it made it easy. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, the cited sources are all highly reliable. Looking at them also reinforces my sense that the article covers all the main points about the play. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.