Talk:Luan Da/GA1

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

I plan to review this article. I understand and agree with your comments regarding the criteria. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 03:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary Review by Robert Skyhawk
I have read the article, and have mixed feelings about its status. For one, there are numerous grammatical, spelling, and prose errors, which are as follows:

''Note:Done and Not Done status reflect whether the issue has been fixed in the article. If you fix anything indicated below, you may change the status of the issue.'' Allow me to give my remaining critique using this checklist: GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * Background section:
 * "early [I]mperial China" doesn't seem specific enough- a year range or dynasty would be much more descriptive.
 * "or perform ritual dances to perform supernatural actions." Use of the word "perform" twice seems redundant.
 * ✅ - Rewording is better, I hope.
 * "The emperor Luan Da would eventually be employed by had killed the former court mystic, Shaoweng by poisoning, specifically by horse liver." This makes no sense; it seems like two sentences were accidentaly/improperly combined here.
 * ✅ - I've explained and in fact changed the meaning a bit. I hope it's satisfactory now.
 * Rise to power section:
 * "Emperor Wu also granted him a marquisate of some 2,000 homes to rule over. He was also given a luxurious mansions..." Again, use of also twice seems redundant.
 * ✅ - Reworded.
 * Fall from power and death section:
 * "Emperor Wu grew suspicious sent officers to track him down." Should be "grew suspicious and sent"?
 * "They found that he was living Mount Tai" Should be "They found that he was living at Mount Tai"?
 * "They found that he was living Mount Tai" Should be "They found that he was living at Mount Tai"?
 * "They found that he was living Mount Tai" Should be "They found that he was living at Mount Tai"?


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Thank you very much in advance, and I hope to be able to award this article the Good Article status it is very close to attaining. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 04:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the problems with the prose, and, furthermore, have given it a copyedit. I entirely forget about images when writing this; sorry. They might be difficult to find, but I'll try to find at least one relevant image suitable to the context. Yes, I am fairly sure the article is comprehensive - three secondary sources and the sole primary source have all been searched, and this article contains all the relevant information. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a single image to the article, which I think is an appropriate number, considering its length. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Second Review by Robert Skyhawk
Thank you for correcting these issues. I will now conduct a second review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: