Talk:Ishi in Two Worlds/GA1

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.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 07:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this review in a bit.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction and limitations

Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I have little knowledge on the subject, but I am fascinated by ancient cultures and beliefs.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

I have assessed the article at B now.

1. Prose:

No copyright violations.
The article reads smooth and professional. Below I will do a detailed review.

2. MOS: Complies.

3. References layout: No dead links. Sources can be identified. Adding dois, jstors or urls to the articles would be nice though.

4. Reliable sources: Yes.

5. Original research: No.

6. Broadness: ...

7. Focus: Yes.

8. Neutral: Yes.

9. Stable: article is stable.

10-11. Pics: Licensed and relevant.

Detailed review per section

I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. To keep communication to the point, you might want to use templates like Done, Doing..., Not done, Removed, Added, and Fixed. Please do not cross out my comments, as I will not yours but only my own. I will do the review of the lead mostly at the end.

Background and writing

~~What's a custory?~~
by a traditional taboo Can we wikilink this?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant naming taboo.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That article is entirely specific to the Chinese cultural sphere; I think the general article is a more appropriate link. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, that's weird.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

~~including one occasion on which he killed a cinnamon bear. This appears less relevant.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]
Removed.

Publication and adaptation

No comments.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and analysis

When quoting, please mention the page number you are quoting from in the citation. This also holds for the other sections.
Can you explain your request a little more? The journal articles cited here are extremely short; 3 pages at the outside. Book citations for quotations are from similarly small page ranges. Why is the exact page necessary?
There is no GA criterium like that, but it's common practice for citations per WP:VERIFY. It is not unreasonable to indicate the page, especially for quotes. I won't fail the article for it of course, but you might be asked again by someone when you do a DYK or go for FA.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Given that there's no page ranges larger than four pages (except for those from the primary text), I'm going to leave it as it is for now, just because of the effort involved. If I do ever take this to FAC, I can put in the extra time. FTR, I've used quotations in several FAs, and I don't recall being asked for the exact page at any point. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
that scholars had over time criticized some of the emphases Please be a bit more specific, or raise an example of such an emphasis.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid Clifford is not more specific at that point; his later criticisms have been included already. So I cannot provide more detail here, but I can remove that fragment if necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No need to remove it. Can more detail be found in the sources Clifford cites?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit fuzzy. The only source he names there is mostly discussing how Ishi was treated as a person, and isn't really about the book; I also don't have complete access to it. So it's a bit difficult to say what he was referring to. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to this 2003 source, the book has already been translated into "more than a dozen languages" (p. xiii).--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added. It's not an independent source (it's the author's two sons writing that book) but it seems a fairly non-controversial piece of information. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broadness

I couldn't find anything significant you hadn't covered yet, though you might want to use the bit here on page 292. But it's not required.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good suggestion, and one that I will implement, but it will take me a few days, so perhaps we shouldn't hold the GA review up for it's sake? I definitely think that this would be veering towards a threshold of "comprehensiveness", which is a worthy goal, but not a GA requirement. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you. As I mentioned, it is not a requirement.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Looks good. Pleased update the number of translations, and we're done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Okay, I am passing for GA. ~~I usually propose to help assessing the potential DYK, but you've probably got better people to help you with that.~~ Finally, if you are available, I'd appreciate it if you would want to take a look and possibly do a review of one of my GA nominations at WP:GAN#REL. See you around.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you already did a DYK, haha. Crossing out my comment then.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, I already had this at DYK; I wrote it from scratch, so it was eligible right away. I'll take a look at your nominations, but I can't promise anything; I tend to restrict myself to reviews where I either know something of the subject, or those where no specialized knowledge is required. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, don't restrict yourself too much. In my experience of nominating and reviewing religious articles for the past years, the best reviewers are those that do not adhere to the religion the article is about.

See you around. Archiving.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

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

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.