Talk:Mengdu/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 21:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * thank you for taking on this review.
 * The reliance on Kang's work is something of a necessity due to the limited amount of existing scholarship; hers is the only work specifically on the topic. I believe the 2012 PhD has been peer-reviewed, and my copy of it says in English that it was "examined and approved". In addition, the work has been favorably cited in recent peer-reviewed publications by established scholars in the field such as Hong Tae-han, who says "the mengdu research of Kang So-jeon is a valuable accomplishment" (강소전의 멩두 연구도 소중한 성과이다).
 * Kang has also continued to do active research in the field after her PhD, and has of course cited her PhD in her later articles.
 * For the banners image, the bottom left tag links to this Korean-language page, which states that you are free to share and adapt it so long as attribution is given.
 * For the Hong Su-il image and other links to the Folk Museum, it seems there's some kind of URL issue which I don't know the cause of, because around half of the the URLs I've provided now link to different artefacts. I've changed the URL targets so they should all be fixed now, but this might be a symptom of some more long-term issue on the Museum's side.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for these responses. On to the next parts of the review! Ganesha811 (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm done reviewing everything but the prose. The only thing at this point it'd be good to get your input on is 3b, the issue of detail. I'll let you know if there are any big prose issues, but I don't expect there will be. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , prose looks good! Just need a response from you on the full-myth issue and then we can wrap this review up. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry for the late reply. On 3b, I agree that a separate article might be best. But I like to ensure a basic baseline of quality for my articles, so I'd have to do more research on the narrative's ritual context, modern scholarly analyses, etc., to have an article on the level of e.g. Samgong bon-puri, which I don't really have the time to do right now. Would it be possible for this GA to pass for the time being? I might return to forking off the summary of the narrative into a new article this summer, during vacation.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes, I think that's reasonable. I'll wrap up the review and pass the article. Congrats on another good article! :) Ganesha811 (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)