Talk:Grass Mud Horse/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 23:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll reveiw this. It has a dead link though that needs to be fixed. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was really quick! Can you give me a day or two before you do a formal review? I'm just going to do a very broad prose edit, and check/standardize the article's references first.Ferox Seneca (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * reply
 * yes, whatever time you need. I notice that the reference format is a little screwed up. Shouldn't be to hard to fix. Let me know when you're ready.
 * also "It has become an Internet chat forum cult phenomenon in China through chat forums" - it has become a chat forum cult phenomenon through chat forums - redundant. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I know that the grass mud horse is part of popular culture, and that academia generally lags behind social developments in its assessments, but I would guess that by now there would be some academic sources discussing the roots and implications of the icon for contemporary China. Please give a check, as right now the sources are mostly from media. That would be my primary suggestion for making it a good article. — Zujine |talk 16:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I nominated this article for consideration to GA class because I believe that it is well-sourced, illustrated, well-organized, and because I believe it gives a comprehensive overview of the subject. After reviewing the article more closely, I've found that it has issues with WP:RS and WP:OR, and I need to improve the article's sources. If you want, you can close this review and wait for me to re-submit the article (if I am able to address the article's issues); or, you can wait for a little while, while I attempt to supplement the article with more reliable and/or scholarly sources, and wait for me to inform you if I believe that this is possible.Ferox Seneca (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * reply
 * I'm willing to wait, if you like, say for a week or so. Or if you prefer, I can fail it and you can renominate when you're ready. (That might put less pressure on you.) But, whatever. You choose. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether there was a conclusion here, but I can try to find some time to add more scholarly sources on the significance of the grass mud horse as it pertains to changing state-society relations, or whatever (there is a fair bit of literature to draw from). As an aside, I find the first couple sections to be delightfully earnest in their account of the genus and habitat of the grass mud horse. Homunculus (duihua) 07:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Little work has been done on the article since the nominator said he would "attempt to supplement the article with more reliable and/or scholarly sources, and wait for me to inform you if I believe that this is possible." So I'll review it now. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
 * It starts out ok, but becomes confusing towards the end of the article.
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * The lede doesn't cover some major points in the article. e.g. the involvement of Ai Weiwei.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Provides references to all sources:
 * The references are not presented in a way that the reader can easily follow to verify. There is a dead link marked a couple of months ago. Also, some reverences do not verify material in the article. e.g. the link verifying an alpaca actually shows a zebra-like animal. References need to be to reliable sources.
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * Much of the material is not verified.
 * C. No original research:
 * e.g. introduction of long segment on Ai Weiwei plus image of him seems like OR.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * B. Remains focused:
 * the body of the article veers off into peripheral subjects not mentioned in lede. Article seems to ramble.
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * almost no edits made to article since nomination
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Fair use justification doesn't cover image of Ai Weiwei
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article needs a lot of work to become a GA. e.g. text needs to be focused, referencing needs to be cleaned up and unreferenced material needs referencing. Recommend a rewrite before submitting to GA again. Good luck. It's an interesting topic and deserves coverage. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article needs a lot of work to become a GA. e.g. text needs to be focused, referencing needs to be cleaned up and unreferenced material needs referencing. Recommend a rewrite before submitting to GA again. Good luck. It's an interesting topic and deserves coverage. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)