GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk · contribs) 21:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Intending to review this. Further comments pending. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 21:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
First pass review
|
---|
1a: the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct
3a: it addresses the main aspects of the topic
4: Neutral
6: Illustrated, if possibleThere are a lot of images here. I haven't yet undertaken an image review. It's possible that there are too many images; I'm not entirely sure how compliant the big inter-sectional rows of images are with regard to WP:GALLERY.
OtherThis review is still in progress. I haven't completed a thorough prose sweep, or an image review, or a final check for other problems. But there are at least enough big structural / topic concerns for me to place this one on hold for now. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 22:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC) |
@ Squeamish Ossifrage: It has been ten days since I replied to all of your comments here and I have pinged you multiple times, but you still have given absolutely no response to any of my questions or replies. Are you still there? I cannot address your criticisms if you do not respond to clarify and elaborate on what you have said. I am trying not to be impatient, but, if you do not respond within the next five days, I will close this review and renominate the article so that a more responsive reviewer can take it. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 16:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I think this article is much-improved from my first examination. Unfortunately, I think it still has quite some ways to go. In a large part, that's because this is a big topic area. The broader a topic is, the harder it is to clear the quality bars. Also, to some extent, I'd like to apologize. I should have done a far more exhaustive analysis in the first pass; some of this should have been caught then.
I think the restructuring of several of the sections greatly benefited the article. However, there are still content issues, mostly related to what isn't here yet.
* I would re-order the sections to go Southwest Asia -> South Asia -> East Asia, from a strictly geographical perspective.
* Regional etymology probably belongs in the "East Asia" parent section rather than under "Chinese dragon"; it's odd seeing Vietnamese and Korean terms at the head of the Chinese subsection.
I remain convinced that this article is non-compliant with
WP:GALLERY. Trying to select from a cornucopia of images is one of the harder editorial tasks. Nevertheless, that's what policy demands here. The good news is that licensing seems in order (indeed, pretty much everything here is from Commons, which makes life relatively easy).
* I think the snake picture is superfluous. The Wawel Dragon bones are fine.
* There are two images for Cadmus (one inline with text, one in the Ancient Greece and Rome gallery); I'd cut the second.
* There are two images for Heracles slaying various dragonish things. I'd keep either the vase painting with the Hydra or the relief plate with Ladon, but not both. My preference would be the former, personally.
* The Shakespeare pull quote doesn't seem to be discussed to attached to any text. Cutting that might give you room for at least one more image in this section.
* If you're going to have an image for the Book of Revelation, you certainly only need one.
* I like the Red and White dragons illustration. You may be able to shuffle around image placement to rescue that from the gallery.
* The Liber Floridus dragon is cute, but probably superfluous.
* I'd cut the rest of that gallery completely; you don't need three images for Zmey Gorynych, and the prose doesn't even mention Vahagn, so there's no need for an image of statue of him. Likewise, that statue from Varna is cute, but totally unconnected with the associated text.
If anything, you need better images for some of the Asian topics.
* I'm not sure that the dragon character infobox is a good use of space here, but can probably be convinced otherwise if you're attached to its use here (it already appears in
Chinese dragon, though).
* I'm unable to determine the reliability of the etwinning.gr website (as it does not render properly for me), nor the ensani.ir website (as it returns a unhandled exception error at the time of this writing).
* I'm fairly certain that onmarkproductions.net (cited here as the "A to Z Photodirectory of Japanese Buddhist Statuary") cannot be considered a reliable source. Among other concerns, some of its text explicitly cites Wikipedia, leading to concerns about circular referencing. Additionally, the site itself is entirely the work of one author (Mark Schumacher), who doesn't appear to have any background that would satisfy the exceptions in
WP:SPS.
* iMDB is never a reliable source for any purpose.
Beyond the concerns I have for the GA standard, I have quite a bit of history reviewing references and reference formatting for the Featured Article process. I've found that many people undertaking a GA push are at least interested in the bronze star as well. Note that none of the issues below are problems at the GA level, but since I was auditing sourcing and references, I thought I'd offer additional notes:
I realize that's a daunting and exhaustive list of article concerns. I do think this has the foundation of a good article, just not—yet—a Good Article. I'm inclined to close this GA to permit additional research and development, but from my time at FAC, I know that sometimes revision and expansion can be surprisingly quick. I'll leave it to your discretion whether you'd prefer I keep this open for another week or two or wrap it up for now and revisit the situation when you're ready for GA2. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 16:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk · contribs) 21:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Intending to review this. Further comments pending. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 21:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
First pass review
|
---|
1a: the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct
3a: it addresses the main aspects of the topic
4: Neutral
6: Illustrated, if possibleThere are a lot of images here. I haven't yet undertaken an image review. It's possible that there are too many images; I'm not entirely sure how compliant the big inter-sectional rows of images are with regard to WP:GALLERY.
OtherThis review is still in progress. I haven't completed a thorough prose sweep, or an image review, or a final check for other problems. But there are at least enough big structural / topic concerns for me to place this one on hold for now. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 22:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC) |
@ Squeamish Ossifrage: It has been ten days since I replied to all of your comments here and I have pinged you multiple times, but you still have given absolutely no response to any of my questions or replies. Are you still there? I cannot address your criticisms if you do not respond to clarify and elaborate on what you have said. I am trying not to be impatient, but, if you do not respond within the next five days, I will close this review and renominate the article so that a more responsive reviewer can take it. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 16:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I think this article is much-improved from my first examination. Unfortunately, I think it still has quite some ways to go. In a large part, that's because this is a big topic area. The broader a topic is, the harder it is to clear the quality bars. Also, to some extent, I'd like to apologize. I should have done a far more exhaustive analysis in the first pass; some of this should have been caught then.
I think the restructuring of several of the sections greatly benefited the article. However, there are still content issues, mostly related to what isn't here yet.
* I would re-order the sections to go Southwest Asia -> South Asia -> East Asia, from a strictly geographical perspective.
* Regional etymology probably belongs in the "East Asia" parent section rather than under "Chinese dragon"; it's odd seeing Vietnamese and Korean terms at the head of the Chinese subsection.
I remain convinced that this article is non-compliant with
WP:GALLERY. Trying to select from a cornucopia of images is one of the harder editorial tasks. Nevertheless, that's what policy demands here. The good news is that licensing seems in order (indeed, pretty much everything here is from Commons, which makes life relatively easy).
* I think the snake picture is superfluous. The Wawel Dragon bones are fine.
* There are two images for Cadmus (one inline with text, one in the Ancient Greece and Rome gallery); I'd cut the second.
* There are two images for Heracles slaying various dragonish things. I'd keep either the vase painting with the Hydra or the relief plate with Ladon, but not both. My preference would be the former, personally.
* The Shakespeare pull quote doesn't seem to be discussed to attached to any text. Cutting that might give you room for at least one more image in this section.
* If you're going to have an image for the Book of Revelation, you certainly only need one.
* I like the Red and White dragons illustration. You may be able to shuffle around image placement to rescue that from the gallery.
* The Liber Floridus dragon is cute, but probably superfluous.
* I'd cut the rest of that gallery completely; you don't need three images for Zmey Gorynych, and the prose doesn't even mention Vahagn, so there's no need for an image of statue of him. Likewise, that statue from Varna is cute, but totally unconnected with the associated text.
If anything, you need better images for some of the Asian topics.
* I'm not sure that the dragon character infobox is a good use of space here, but can probably be convinced otherwise if you're attached to its use here (it already appears in
Chinese dragon, though).
* I'm unable to determine the reliability of the etwinning.gr website (as it does not render properly for me), nor the ensani.ir website (as it returns a unhandled exception error at the time of this writing).
* I'm fairly certain that onmarkproductions.net (cited here as the "A to Z Photodirectory of Japanese Buddhist Statuary") cannot be considered a reliable source. Among other concerns, some of its text explicitly cites Wikipedia, leading to concerns about circular referencing. Additionally, the site itself is entirely the work of one author (Mark Schumacher), who doesn't appear to have any background that would satisfy the exceptions in
WP:SPS.
* iMDB is never a reliable source for any purpose.
Beyond the concerns I have for the GA standard, I have quite a bit of history reviewing references and reference formatting for the Featured Article process. I've found that many people undertaking a GA push are at least interested in the bronze star as well. Note that none of the issues below are problems at the GA level, but since I was auditing sourcing and references, I thought I'd offer additional notes:
I realize that's a daunting and exhaustive list of article concerns. I do think this has the foundation of a good article, just not—yet—a Good Article. I'm inclined to close this GA to permit additional research and development, but from my time at FAC, I know that sometimes revision and expansion can be surprisingly quick. I'll leave it to your discretion whether you'd prefer I keep this open for another week or two or wrap it up for now and revisit the situation when you're ready for GA2. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 16:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)