Wikipedia:Featured article review/Guqin/archive1

Guqin

Review commentary

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]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), citations (1c), and organization (2). Marskell (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have bolded the transliterations in the first line, and added WG at one other point. This should probably be done consistently at first references to Chinese words; readers who come here from Van Gulik or other 1940's sources should not be lost.
Much of this article plainly comes from Van Gulik and the two translations cited; anything which doesn't should have a source, preferably in English. We are not the Chinese WP and cannot assume that our readers know Chinese. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]