The article was promoted 18:43, 15 May 2007.
Taiwanese aborigines is one of the most in-depth, comprehensive and thoroughly researched articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups. It is currently a very strong GA. Self-nomination. Co-nomination by Maowang and Ling.Nut 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC). reply
(undent) Thanks, I didn't. :-) I was looking into all the ins and outs of images. Samsara resized the map. In fact, the map was precisely what I had in mind when I was commenting earlier about the reduced size of the images. I personally dislike the small image size on other pictures as well, but it seems to be standard practice... As Samsara noted in the relevant edit summary, the text of the map is actually important to the article (far more important than the details of the photos). -- Ling.Nut 19:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Support I reviewed this article several times on its way to getting its GA; it has been a pleasure to watch the article grow and expand and get better. The article is compelling, well referenced, uses appropriate images, is stable, and is worthy of the FA star probably more than almost any other article currently nominated. I fully support its promotion.-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 02:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Comments. I won't support or oppose because I'm not completely familiar with FA guidelines, but I have a few comments.
Overall--very good job! I found the article informative and well sourced. Cheers! -- Fang Aili talk 13:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I fixed two typos and some grammar, commas...etc. I'll look into the names without adding an entire paragraph. Each group was different and held different naming systems. Thank you for your comments, you have a real good eye for copy editing :-) Maowang 02:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Object I find this article hard to read. The language is unnecessarily complex. The best writing uses simple words and sentences. I do not believe this article is a good example of "brilliant prose". -- Calde 02:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment. Overall, a highly commendable article, with impressive attention to research and referencing. There are a couple of instances where the language and complexity of the sentence structures could be simplified and made more accessible. Some that caught my eye:
Still, a very credible work, will probably look to support once I give it a little more of a read.-- cjllw ʘ TALK 07:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
We mention the colonial POV so we can continue to discuss the topic with the baggage out on the table. Thanks again for the attention to this article, really thoughtful comments. Much appreciated Maowang 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks guys, I believe those changes and some subsequent others took care of the main points. I agree that prehistory only needs a light coverage here, but it seemed necessary to 'round out' the picture to give the unfamiliar reader some background on origins and antecedants. What's there now should do fine.
I'd made a couple of other, mainly stylistic changes. Importantly, the content and scope is excellent and informative, and the verifiability at a high standard. The prose is largely there, perhaps a couple more tweaks to tighten in some places. I may have one or two more content clarifications to ask when I've finished looking, but in case I don't get back to this in time I'd be happy for my comments to be taken as being in support of this nomination, as I see all major, and many minor, bases and topics covered and cited.-- cjllw ʘ TALK 08:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: The exact meaning of the last part of the sentence "Although the KMT continued to hold the reins of power for another decade under President Lee Teng-hui, they did so as an elected government rather than a ruling power that had supported many of the bills that had been promoted by Aboriginal groups." is not clear to me. Does it mean that the KMT supported bills by the aboriginal groups back when it was a ruling power? or that it did so as an elected government? I suspect that it is the latter, but that is definately not what it currently says. Rusty Cashman 01:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Support - Although I would like to see consistent use of <ref> tags. I would like to help out on it, and will ask for the nominator's opinion. User:AQu01rius 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Fixed the sentence
Ling.Nut 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
There's a tendency to omit repetitions of key grammatical words that appear early in a sentence, and that readers would find easier if included, as with "to" above. "Taiwan's Austronesian speakers were formerly distributed over much of the island's rugged central mountain range and were concentrated in villages along the alluvial plains."
And more. Fresh eyes required. Tony 01:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Tony1,
I have made some changes per your comments.Thanks! Maowang 08:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply
It's a good article, and thus worth polishing. Can someone go through the whole article? Tony 03:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 18:43, 15 May 2007.
Taiwanese aborigines is one of the most in-depth, comprehensive and thoroughly researched articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups. It is currently a very strong GA. Self-nomination. Co-nomination by Maowang and Ling.Nut 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC). reply
(undent) Thanks, I didn't. :-) I was looking into all the ins and outs of images. Samsara resized the map. In fact, the map was precisely what I had in mind when I was commenting earlier about the reduced size of the images. I personally dislike the small image size on other pictures as well, but it seems to be standard practice... As Samsara noted in the relevant edit summary, the text of the map is actually important to the article (far more important than the details of the photos). -- Ling.Nut 19:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Support I reviewed this article several times on its way to getting its GA; it has been a pleasure to watch the article grow and expand and get better. The article is compelling, well referenced, uses appropriate images, is stable, and is worthy of the FA star probably more than almost any other article currently nominated. I fully support its promotion.-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 02:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Comments. I won't support or oppose because I'm not completely familiar with FA guidelines, but I have a few comments.
Overall--very good job! I found the article informative and well sourced. Cheers! -- Fang Aili talk 13:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I fixed two typos and some grammar, commas...etc. I'll look into the names without adding an entire paragraph. Each group was different and held different naming systems. Thank you for your comments, you have a real good eye for copy editing :-) Maowang 02:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Object I find this article hard to read. The language is unnecessarily complex. The best writing uses simple words and sentences. I do not believe this article is a good example of "brilliant prose". -- Calde 02:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment. Overall, a highly commendable article, with impressive attention to research and referencing. There are a couple of instances where the language and complexity of the sentence structures could be simplified and made more accessible. Some that caught my eye:
Still, a very credible work, will probably look to support once I give it a little more of a read.-- cjllw ʘ TALK 07:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
We mention the colonial POV so we can continue to discuss the topic with the baggage out on the table. Thanks again for the attention to this article, really thoughtful comments. Much appreciated Maowang 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks guys, I believe those changes and some subsequent others took care of the main points. I agree that prehistory only needs a light coverage here, but it seemed necessary to 'round out' the picture to give the unfamiliar reader some background on origins and antecedants. What's there now should do fine.
I'd made a couple of other, mainly stylistic changes. Importantly, the content and scope is excellent and informative, and the verifiability at a high standard. The prose is largely there, perhaps a couple more tweaks to tighten in some places. I may have one or two more content clarifications to ask when I've finished looking, but in case I don't get back to this in time I'd be happy for my comments to be taken as being in support of this nomination, as I see all major, and many minor, bases and topics covered and cited.-- cjllw ʘ TALK 08:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: The exact meaning of the last part of the sentence "Although the KMT continued to hold the reins of power for another decade under President Lee Teng-hui, they did so as an elected government rather than a ruling power that had supported many of the bills that had been promoted by Aboriginal groups." is not clear to me. Does it mean that the KMT supported bills by the aboriginal groups back when it was a ruling power? or that it did so as an elected government? I suspect that it is the latter, but that is definately not what it currently says. Rusty Cashman 01:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Support - Although I would like to see consistent use of <ref> tags. I would like to help out on it, and will ask for the nominator's opinion. User:AQu01rius 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Fixed the sentence
Ling.Nut 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
There's a tendency to omit repetitions of key grammatical words that appear early in a sentence, and that readers would find easier if included, as with "to" above. "Taiwan's Austronesian speakers were formerly distributed over much of the island's rugged central mountain range and were concentrated in villages along the alluvial plains."
And more. Fresh eyes required. Tony 01:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Tony1,
I have made some changes per your comments.Thanks! Maowang 08:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply
It's a good article, and thus worth polishing. Can someone go through the whole article? Tony 03:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC) reply