Talk:The Mongol Khan/GA1

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

Reviewer: Frzzl (talk · contribs) 18:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I'd like to take this one on.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  18:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem - I've added comments. If you fundamentally disagree with any of my proposed rephrasings, just say so - they're simply some personal preferences.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  20:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries ; all should be responded to. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Lovely jubbly; the inclusion of the photo of the theatre is a very nice choice. Passing!  Frzzl  talk; contribs  20:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Review

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Lede
 * Could we mention the approximate time range of the Xiongnu Empire? The lay reader would have no clue when it existed. - F
 * Synopsis
 * Well written, not too long/appropriate level of depth. - F
 * Cast
 * I've seen several sources mention the fact that it has seventy cast members, with seven lead actors - I think this is probably worth mentioning, separately from the information about the size of the theatre company. It would allow you to remove the "Source:" bit of text below the list as well. - F
 * History
 * With no images to break it up, the sheer number of paragraphs here makes it a little harder to read. Could you add some subheadings? Perhaps split in three: with the headings "China" and "London"? - F
 * Even though only one member is fluent in the language; is -> was
 * wikilink soft power
 * I think that "of the United Kingdom's recognition of Mongolian sovereignty" flows a little better than the United Kingdom recognising Mongolia's sovereignty.
 * Reception
 * The reception of the London production varied from positive to negative. feels a little odd and strung out. Perhaps "The London production was met by a mixed response from critics" or something or the sort?
 * issues with the flaky plot -> "flaky", missed from quotation marks.


 * Overall, not all bad! Will be happy to pass the article once the above queries have been adressed.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  20:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Earwig brings up only quotes, so passed for copyvio. The references section is well formatted, so no issues there either. A few primary sources have been used, but in context, there appears to be no issues with them.
 * 6 spotchecks, randomly taken:
 * ref 2) Passed for verifiability and copyvio (not that you really could)
 * ref 5) Passed for verifiability and copyvio
 * ref 9) Passed for verifiability and copyvio
 * ref 10) If Google Translate is serving me well, no problems with copyvios, and it confirms the prose
 * ref 13) Passed for verifiability and copyvio; well-written, I like the simplification to "mammalian"
 * ref 18) Passed for verifiability


 * Very nice! - F
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Well focused, well sized, and covers all the major aspects of the play. Summary style is used well, the synopsis is not excessive. - F
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Article is overall neutral. The Reception section is nicely balanced with reviews - all opinions are clearly marked as such. - F
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Only issue would be the adding and deletion of images, but that is resolved and several months passed. - F
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Only image used is a promotional poster for the play, which is appropriately tagged as Fair Use and at a fair resolution. The promotional photos have been deleted, so no issue there. - F
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: