Wikipedia:Peer review/Wei Yan/archive1

Wei Yan edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because

the article isn't lacking its citation.
the article structure solid enough & enjoyable to read
PoV neutral enough
it have scholarly commentary

Thanks, Ahendra (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ahendra, peer review is for editors who are looking to get feedback on their article. Did you mean to nominate this for Good Article status? If not, what would you like reviewers to comment on, or give feedback for? Z1720 (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Z1720, i only looking for further feedback, since for WP:GA the arcitle still lacking inline citations. Ahendra (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720 edit

Some thoughts:

The "In Romance of the Three Kingdoms" and "In popular culture" sections require inline citations. Also, per WP:OVERSECTION I think they can be combined together.
- Convention for these articles is to split Romance and Popular Culture information. Romance is in a sort of limbo, it's considered too significant to place in 'Popular Culture' but it's far too dramatised and fictionalised to be a proper source in the main body. So it usually gets its own section. KeeperOfThePeace (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "Analysis" section relies too much on quotes. Instead of copying what someone has said, it is better to summarise the information.
References should have specific page numbers, if possible.
Every source should be used as inline citations in the article, not just listed at the bottom. Currently there are no inline citations for "de Crespigny, Rafe (1990)", "de Crespigny, Rafe (2003)." "de Crespigny, Rafe (2004)" "de Crespigny, Rafe (2004)." and "Zhu, Ziyan (2010)". It's possible that the citations are used, but because there is missing information for the inline citation they are not pointing to the correct source.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahendra: to ensure that they saw the above comments. Z1720 (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks for notice, sire, i appreciate ur review and input for future improvement of the article. Ahendra (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]