Wikipedia:Featured article review/Guqin/archive1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:28, 23 January 2008

Guqin

Notified User:CharlieHuang and User:Badagnani —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeizureDog (talk • contribs) 20:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was promoted over a year ago and has since changed drastically.

Issues at hand:

I feel that the article may fail criteria 1(a). After going through and correcting many minor errors, I feel uncomfortable that I, a single editor, am finding so much to fix. I believe a thorough copyedit is in order.
The popular culture section. This was completely absent when promoted. I feel that it should be removed as trivia, but such sections are still a sticky subject with many.
The "Players" section goes against Wikipedia:Embedded list.
There are more references given than in-line citations provided. A tad worrisome for a FA article. The number of external links is also rather large.

These are just some of the few issues that I'm seeing. I'm not the best at this, which is why I'm bringing it to the attention of FAR.--SeizureDog (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a bit of snipping of the article. Point 2; I have removed the list of pop culture references. I do feel a section is needed as the qin in pop culture is an important development in the qin's reaching out to wider audiences and recognition. Point 3; I have cut the list down to a few which I think is more acceptable, unless you want it to convert totally to prose. Point 4; I have moved much of the references and external links to the discussion page and I have kept very the important ones (either cited in the article or important for further reading which I feel are required to stay as a gateway for more about the qin). I'll leave Point 1 for my colleagues to decide upon and carry out.

--Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 11:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 --[[User:CharlieHuang|Charlie Huang]] [[User talk:CharlieHuang|【遯卋山人】]] 11:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
-It would seem that my name is rattling around on this one but I would make the point that this article is mostly sound but in need to rewriting to meet FA status and the lack of inline citation is appalling.
-*Someone lifted tables from another work and proceeded to insert them without citing the source which would appear to me a copywrite violation.
-*Various issues are mentioned in brief without expansion and citation which did affect the battle, lack of Turret roof armor (armor suites being over taken by fire control ranges), over centralization of command in the Grand Fleet, Squadron commander's lack of iniative, basic torpedo tactics (no naval commander would head into a torpedo attack),  the desperation of the High Seas Fleet to get away, ect.
-*No FA class article should be classed as such without through ciation and this is almost non existent. [[User:Tirronan|Tirronan]] ([[User talk:Tirronan|talk]]) 22:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)