Jump to content

Talk:Tang Da Wu/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I will be reviewing your article for GA. It looks like an interesting article on a fascinating individual. The references and writing looks good, as does the general organization. I am making some initial comments below and will add to them as I go through the article more thoroughly. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • Add birth date following his name in lede (orients reader as to time frame without having to look at infobox)
  • Move "Personal life" from below "Major exhibitions and performances". Perhaps, since it is so short, it could be integrated into "Early life and education" with a little change in section title to "Personal life" or something satisfactory to you.
  • Perhaps the "Career" section could do with some subheadings, maybe "Early career", "Achievements" "Advocacy" or whatever you think would help organize the reader in following Tang's career.
  • Some of "Career" and "Art" seem to overlap. Maybe the division between the two could be made clearer by putting all mentions of his art under "Art".
    • Comment: I think this will be difficult. It is not possible to talk about Tang's career without mentioning at least some of his key works of art. The main difference between the two sections is that the "Art" section tries to highlight some themes in Tang's art. — JackLee, 04:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there needs to be some brief description of Performance art and Installations - the difference between them, their relative importance to him, how he used them.
    • Partly fixed. I've added some description of performance art and installation art. Unfortunately, I haven't come across anything in the sources I consulted about the importance of these two forms of art to Tang – will have to do some offline reading if you need me to. Is this a deal-breaker? — JackLee, 05:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a way that the table of his "Major exhibitions and performances" could be made smaller so that the information in it could be more easily comprehended?
  • I am not certain that you are using the correct Template:Citation for all the citations, as the the last reference (No. 37) seems incorrect: David Chew (8 September 2006), "Pushing boundaries; Familiar sights and sounds get a new twist from local audio-visual artist Zai Tang", Today: 58. (Should not the "58" be bolded if it is a journal number?
  • This sentence is not a complete sentence: T.K. Sabapathy noted: "The Village was a beacon, and Da Wu both a catalyst and mentor."
    • Comment: I don't think I should change the sentence as it is a quotation. Also, it is grammatically complete – what Sabapathy is saying is that "[t]he Village was a beacon, and Da Wu [was] both a catalyst and mentor". — JackLee, 04:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are places that need commas. Generally, when you start a sentence with a clause such as "In June 1999..." for example, there is a comma after the date, as in "In June 1999, he ..."
  • I have not checked how closely the lede follows the content of the article. It is important that WP:LEAD be followed.

—Mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I've put some responses to your comments above, though I'm still working on the article. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

OK, thanks for addressing the points. You seem to be correct. I am just thinking of ways that the article can point out his work more clearly. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've finished tweaking the article. Have added a few more responses above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Looks really good. Just a few more questions:

  • The headings under "Career" - is there any way to make them shorter and more elegant? Do they have to mention both dates & accomplisments? For example, "Since 2000: Recent activities" - could it be either "Since 2000" or "Recent activities"?
  • Some of the references seem to combine more than one source. I have not seen references quite like that before. For example, ref 12:

<ref>Quoted in {{citation|author=T.K. Sabapathy|title=The Space: An Introduction|location=Singapore|publisher=Artists Village|year=1992|page=1}}, and in {{citation|author=T.K. Sabapathy|chapter=Contemporary Art in Singapore: An Introduction|editor=Caroline Turner|title=Tradition and Change: Contemporary Art of Asia and the Pacific|location=Queensland|publisher=[[University of Queensland|University of Queensland Press]]|year=1993|isbn=0702225835|page=83 at 86}}: see {{citation|author=Lynn Gumpert|title=A Global City for the Arts? – Singapore|url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_n12_v85/ai_20094661/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1|newspaper=[[Art in America]] (reproduced on [[FindArticles]])|date=December 1997|accessdate=2008-10-23}}.</ref>

Is this correct use of referencing? —Mattisse (Talk) 19:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such footnotes are quite common in academic writing, which I am familiar with. In this case, the purpose of the footnote was to point out that the quotation in the text appeared in the sources indicated, and that this information was obtained from the article by Lynn Gumpert. It would not have been appropriate to split the sentence into several footnotes. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

I have changed the heading to remove the dates. I think that is ok because the dates are in the body of each section.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Article is well written b (MoS): Complies with MoS
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Sets context b (focused): Remains focused on article subject
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: Remains NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

A very nice, well written and referenced article. Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for fixing and passing the article even before I got to it! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tang_Da_Wu/GA1&oldid=1257920016"