Talk:Handan Chun/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Aza24 (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2022 (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

Reviewer: Aza24 (talk · contribs) 07:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review this. Expect comments in the coming days. – Aza24 (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanguozhi zhu and Hou Hanshu references

@Aza24: How should the Sanguozhi zhu and Hou Hanshu references be formatted? The way I'm currently citing it is messy and awkward. Mucube (talk • contribs) 19:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you were saying now on my talk page. I'll try and think of a solution when I get to the full review. Best – Aza24 (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Throughout the article, you should be referring to Handan Chun by just his surname, Handan, as is standard on WP
- Done, mostly
There's no date in the lead to give the reader reference for when Handan lived
- Added "lived in the early 3rd century"
What about "Chinese writer, calligrapher, and official from Cao Wei" instead? I feel that his being from Yingchuan Commandery is not pertinent enough to warrant inclusion in the lead
- I've reworded the lead a bit. I've kept the Yingchuan Commandery thing because I'm not sure where best to put that fact in the article.
I'm not sure the line "He was a famous writer and poet, and was particularly known for his calligraphy" adds anything to the lead—it seems redundant to the previous sentence
- Removed sentence.
Definitely link county magistrate
- Done
Could you briefly explain who "Cao E" is?
- Done
"fled to" makes it sound like he was running from something? Is this the case or should it rephrased?
- de Crespigny states that he "took refuge in Jing province"
Page number(s) for Knechtges?
- Done
When you introduce people like Chen Ji, it would be nice to have a word or two about who they are, i.e. "he wrote the funerary stele for the scholar Chen Ji"
- I made it to look like "the official Chen Ji"
Who are Shen Yucheng and Shi Xuancong? Sinologists?
- The Baccini thesis mentions them once and doesn't elaborate.
The Works section is generally well-written, though throughout the article the prose can be become somewhat rigid at times. Part of this is, I think, the fact that Handan's full name is used so often (as I mentioned above), when it should almost always be just the surname.
Going to leave these comments here for now for you to respond to/address. Aza24 (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: Addressed all of them. Mucube (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All looks great, thanks. I tried to adjust the commentary refs more—what do you think? Also, you should probably add volume numbers to two of the Sanguozhi zhu refs; I wasn't sure what they were. Aza24 (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added the volume numbers for the two Sanguozhi zhu references. I would prefer the commentary references to look something like: "Yu Huan's Weilüe quoted in the Sanguozhi zhu, vol 21: "及黃初初，以淳爲博士給事中。淳作投壺賦千餘言奏之，文帝以爲工，賜帛千匹。"" Mucube (talk • contribs) 04:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would definitely be fine by me if you prefer it. Aza24 (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the references now. Do you have any other suggestions for the article? Mucube (talk • contribs) 04:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No—great work here. Passing now, congrats! Aza24 (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2022 (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.