Talk:Luo Yixiu

Chang and Halliday

Jung Chang in her biography gives 1908 for the marriage "when Mao was 14 and his bride 18". Richard Pinch 22:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Luo Yigu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: White whirlwind (talk · contribs) 03:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC) You've done a nice job with a dearth of material with which to go on. Here are a few things to correct. First, remove the tone diacritics (marks) from the entire body of the article. You have the pinyin rendering of Luo's name in the opening template, so it won't affect anyone who wishes to pronounce Luo's name correctly but can't read the characters. Second, delete the "Mao's" before "biographers" at the end of the lead. Third, it's unnecessary to give publication dates after the names of researchers or scholars in the article itself - your citations will give those. Fourth, I would unlink and decapitalize South Central China in the lead.

You've done a nice job so far. I would advise you really dig to find a bit more substance to include in the article. After fixing what I've mentioned, adding some more information, and maybe getting another review, I think the article will be ready to pass.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you White Whirlwind; your comments are appreciated. I have crossed out those points which I have completed so far. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I completed the removal of the last publication date, removed all the Pinyin diacritics, except the first one, of course, and made some small style changes to the article. I extended MidnightBlue's strikethrough on this page accordingly. I'll be looking for more information as well. TI. Gracchus (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

A follow up: as I mentioned on White Whirlwind's page, I've done more research to see if the page could be fleshed out, and investigated the citation sources as well. I found that this article is now the most definitive, professional, and complete treatment of Luo Yixiu on the internet, including searches on Google Scholar. Lack of further information can probably be explained by the lack of modern record keeping in rural China and subsequent period of war and upheaval in the mid-twentieth century. In addition, this article draws from five different biographies, including what is probably, despite its relative lack of documentation, the most authoritative source for information on Mao's early life, "Red Star Over China." Although I hesitate to say this about anything, I think this article may contain nearly all the information it is possible is to know about Luo Yixiu. TI. Gracchus (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, Mightnightblueowl, you proved me totally wrong. I'll help by checking over your additions shortly. Great work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TI. Gracchus (talk • contribs) 21:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello there! Sorry, I've only just got hold of a copy of Alexander Pantsov and Steven Levine's recently published Mao: The Real Story, which constitutes the most exhaustively researched biography of Mao available; a really magisterial work. It expands quite considerably on information regarding Luo Yigu, and I have combed that particular volume for biographical data to use in this article. I now do agree that this page is as comprehensive as it can realistically be. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• It has been 19 days since the most recent edits of substance were made on the article. What is the status of this review? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what has happened to WhiteWhirlwind, they seem to have vanished (I hope that they are okay, and wish them well if they are facing personal problems that prevent them from editing). It's been over a week since the last post BlueMoonset, so I suggest that we set about looking for a new editor to review this article. I shall put out a request. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the major changes to the article since the review began, I'm putting this back in the queue. Wizardman 14:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Luo Yigu/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sagaciousphil (talk · contribs) 09:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I am going to try and review this nomination but it will be the first GA review I have undertaken - I'm a little more familiar with DYK nominations - so please bear with me. If I get anything wrong, I would really appreciate a gentle nudge to point me in the right direction. I have also asked a far more experienced GAN reviewer to check once I've finished.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• I don't fully understand: "Luo Helou and his wife had five sons and five daughters, of whom only three daughters survived infancy; this was a blow to their societal status, for in Chinese society at the time, only sons could continue the family lineage." How does the daughters not surviving infancy effect the sons continuing the family lineage?
  • What I meant to convey with that passage was that having no surviving sons was a blow to the family's societal status because daughters could not carry the family lineage. Perhaps the passage could be rephrased to make this meaning clearer ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• What about adding a couple of words to clarify: "only three daughters and no sons survived infancy;..." Thanks for responding so promptly! SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've gone for "Luo Helou and his wife had five sons and five daughters, of whom only three daughters survived infancy. The couples' lack of adult sons diminished their societal status, for in Chinese society at the time, only sons could continue the family lineage." Do you think that this is okay ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, thank you, that clarifies it perfectly! SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• I made a minor change (pp. → p. in one ref);
• I'm having difficulty properly verifying the Clare Hollingworth book - could the isbn be checked, please?
  • I can confirm that the ISBN number of the Hollingworth book is 0224017608. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Other than the couple of minor points I've raised above - which I do appreciate may well be me doing something wrong - I think this is a good article. I'll now just wait until the small queries can be addressed and someone more experienced can give my review a run through. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just needs the US PD licenses to be in place now and I'll be able to sign this off - thanks for your patience with an inexperienced reviewer! SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

2. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I think that as Khazar2 has also reviewed/endorsed this now, I can happily give it a pass! Very well done on an interesting article and thanks to both Midnightblueowl and Khazar2 for their prompt help, speedy responses and patience dealing with a novice GA reviewer! SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hi MBO! Since it's Phil's first review, she asked me to look over her shoulder for a quick second opinion.

This looks solid to me and essentially ready for promotion once Phil's concerns above are resolved (and they seem like easy fixes). Nice job on this one--you've got quite the range of wiki-interests.

I'd only offer two quibbles:

1) the images of the two Maos appear to need US public domain tags to accompany their China PD tags 2) " In their controversial biography Mao: The Untold Story" -- "controversial" could probably be cut here. The book was clearly controversial, so I'm not disputing the accuracy, but it adds a minor (and probably unneeded) neutrality issue to tag one source that way. Since Chang and Halliday are only agreeing with what two other sources said here, I think this word could just be cut (this doesn't seem to have been one of the book's controversial moments).

On a side note, the infobox and text appear to use different date formats (mdy vs. dmy), but this isn't a relevant point for GA. Thanks to you both for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Khazar; sounds alright to me, consider "controversial" excised! Thanks for taking a look at the page! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And I've now stuck U.S. public domain notes on the images. :) Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Great job!

Congrats on getting this important and hard to research article to FA status and on the main page! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Mscuthbert:! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)