Talk:Guandimiao/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Remsense诉 01:36, 21 May 2024 (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: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 03:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Remsense (talk · contribs) 03:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're so fast. Remsense诉 03:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary table

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Comment	Result
Relatively new and no sign of edit warring or ongoing	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Undetermined	The reviewer has left no comments here

Discussion

TLP swinging by

This comment is in no place to replace Remsense's review above. My eyes are shaking when I see Generalissima crafted a very good article on a Chinese historic site that is *not* covered even on zh-wiki. Laura, if you keep doing things like this, you might deprive me of my only source of joy in life. /s

I did a close reading and to be fair, there's nothing much to add or fix. The prose style is in particular fantastic. Ping me in mid June and I will see if I can access the Chinese sources in "Further Reading" and add to the article, though these two sources look more like archaelogical summaries and I doubt whether they can contribute much. Perhaps they can add to the discovery of the site in detail. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying that I welcome your comments! Remsense诉 09:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology and history

It seems churlish when this is such a useful article, but I have some minor quibbles about the background bit, specifically "Founded c. 1600 BCE, the Shang dynasty transitioned into the Late Shang c. 1250 BCE" and "Zhengzhou and Yanshi were the core administrative centers of the Shang state". While it is common in China to identify Erligang as the early part of the Shang dynasty of the traditional histories, other archaeologists point out that the evidence for this is lacking, and criticize subordinating archaeology to the received texts. (Of course this doesn't apply to the Anyang folk, who left us inscriptions in which they call themselves "Shang".) A solution would be to mention the relationship to the traditional histories once, and write everything else in archaeological terms. Thus Erligang begins c. 1600 BCE, and Zhengzhou and Yanshi were major urban centres of that period.

Also, "achieved a material cultural influence over much of present-day China" is both vague and surely wrong, as present-day China is very big. One could certainly say that Late Shang material culture is found across most of the North China Plain. Kanguole 18:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points on both counts, and not churlish at all! I fixed this up. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belated continuance

Sorry about that—I also realize that I tend to critique by doing, I imaging this could drive some submitters crazy. Having gone over it a few times, I've largely just had minor prose copyedits, each of the sources are exactly what one would expect and coverage is largely in order. Should be passing this imminently. Remsense诉 05:33, 17 May 2024 (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.