Jump to content

Talk:Xue Susu

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Xue Susu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 03:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC) The last analogous article was a nice experience. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) See below for specified issues. UPDATE: Have been addressed. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Pass. Pass Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Pass. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Yes. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) None detected. Pass Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Pass. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Pass. Pass Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    Pass here. Pass Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    Pass here. Pass Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) There is an issue with the elongated print displayed at the top of the page, along with the white background. They do not have the proper fair usage tags. See the image page itself. UPDATE: Fine now. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Definite pass here. Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Neutral Undetermined The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

[edit]

The comprehensive review has not yet started; I have reviewed the images however. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image PD tags fixed, thanks. Yunshui  07:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead & Infobox

[edit]

Fine here.

Biography

[edit]

"...among the literati and government official who..." Plural form of officials
Does Qian Qianyi garner a wikilink?

Pluralised "officials", good spot. Qian Qianyi is wikilinked, so I'm not sure what you mean - are you suggesting it shouldn't be? Yunshui  21:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've also change "eremite" in the lead back to "recluse" - for most English-speakers, "eremite" is a comparatively archaic reading of hermit, and she wasn't really a hermit in the sense that the word is usually used in English; her retirement from the world doesn't seem to have been a full-on cave-in-the-desert job - she just stopped going out much! Yunshui  21:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, and I see. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings

[edit]

Fine here.

Poetry

[edit]

Excellent.

Archery

[edit]

Intriguing, as well as excellent.

Conclusion

[edit]

This is a fine article. Once everything above has been mitigated, it will pass. Congratulations! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xue Susu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]