Talk:Grass Mud Horse/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 23:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll reveiw this. It has a dead link though that needs to be fixed. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, that was really quick! Can you give me a day or two before you do a formal review? I'm just going to do a very broad prose edit, and check/standardize the article's references first.Ferox Seneca (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

reply

• yes, whatever time you need. I notice that the reference format is a little screwed up. Shouldn't be to hard to fix. Let me know when you're ready.
• also "It has become an Internet chat forum cult phenomenon in China through chat forums" - it has become a chat forum cult phenomenon through chat forums - redundant. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I know that the grass mud horse is part of popular culture, and that academia generally lags behind social developments in its assessments, but I would guess that by now there would be some academic sources discussing the roots and implications of the icon for contemporary China. Please give a check, as right now the sources are mostly from media. That would be my primary suggestion for making it a good article. —Zujine|talk 16:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• I nominated this article for consideration to GA class because I believe that it is well-sourced, illustrated, well-organized, and because I believe it gives a comprehensive overview of the subject. After reviewing the article more closely, I've found that it has issues with WP:RS and WP:OR, and I need to improve the article's sources. If you want, you can close this review and wait for me to re-submit the article (if I am able to address the article's issues); or, you can wait for a little while, while I attempt to supplement the article with more reliable and/or scholarly sources, and wait for me to inform you if I believe that this is possible.Ferox Seneca (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

reply

• I'm willing to wait, if you like, say for a week or so. Or if you prefer, I can fail it and you can renominate when you're ready. (That might put less pressure on you.) But, whatever. You choose. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether there was a conclusion here, but I can try to find some time to add more scholarly sources on the significance of the grass mud horse as it pertains to changing state-society relations, or whatever (there is a fair bit of literature to draw from). As an aside, I find the first couple sections to be delightfully earnest in their account of the genus and habitat of the grass mud horse. Homunculus (duihua) 07:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Little work has been done on the article since the nominator said he would "attempt to supplement the article with more reliable and/or scholarly sources, and wait for me to inform you if I believe that this is possible." So I'll review it now. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   It starts out ok, but becomes confusing towards the end of the article.

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The lede doesn't cover some major points in the article. e.g. the involvement of Ai Weiwei.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   The references are not presented in a way that the reader can easily follow to verify. There is a dead link marked a couple of months ago. Also, some reverences do not verify material in the article. e.g. the link verifying an alpaca actually shows a zebra-like animal. References need to be to reliable sources.

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   Much of the material is not verified.

   C. No original research:

   e.g. introduction of long segment on Ai Weiwei plus image of him seems like OR.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

   the body of the article veers off into peripheral subjects not mentioned in lede. Article seems to ramble.

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   almost no edits made to article since nomination

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Fair use justification doesn't cover image of Ai Weiwei

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article needs a lot of work to become a GA. e.g. text needs to be focused, referencing needs to be cleaned up and unreferenced material needs referencing. Recommend a rewrite before submitting to GA again. Good luck. It's an interesting topic and deserves coverage. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)