Talk:Bonsai/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 15:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;


 * The prose needs some work for GA standard. The history sections use a lot of short, stubby paragraphs - often only one sentence apiece - which don't flow together. I'd strongly recommend a heavy copy-edit.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;


 * Yes. There is no consistent style, although this isn't a GA requirement.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;


 * Unclear why "Pyramid Dancer" is a reliable source for bonsai issues (NB: the links are broken, so I can't tell who they were originally). Hchc2009 (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.


 * Hard to tell, as substantial sections are unreferenced, e.g.:
 * "This artifact is composed of a shallow wooden tray serving as a base..."
 * "Criticism of the interest in curiously twisted specimens..."
 * "This denoted the use of a fairly deep pot..."
 * "Following the surrender of Japan, there began the post-war re-evaluation and reviving of damaged collections of trees..."
 * "Over centuries of practice, the Japanese bonsai aesthetic..." etc.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.


 * Appear neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.


 * Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.


 * Some strange use of bolding, e.g. "Slant-style conifer".