Talk:Qianling Mausoleum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Qianling Mausoleum has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on February 15, 2008.
February 26, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
華	This article is maintained by the Chinese history workgroup.
More information about this article... High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	Archaeology Portal This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.

	Middle Ages Portal Qianling Mausoleum is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

[edit] Creation and expansion

I just created this article; shout out and much thanks to User:Nlu for improving the article, providing links, Chinese characters, citations, etc. To everyone else, be bold, edit and expand, or make it known here what you want to add. Please come armed with scholarly sources, though.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Well done on this article.

Record of edits:

• "there was found" -> "there were found" ("Tombs" section, correcting plural tense)
• "halls Li Xián's" -> "halls of Li Xián's" ("Murals" section, adding missing word)
• "there is only six" -> "there are only six" ("Murals" section, correcting plural tense)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   "...real fully-stone doors..." I'm not quite sure what to make of that. Not having a background in Chinese Architecture, it almost seems to imply that the Chinese were using Sheetrock in the 8th century, which of course is complete nonsense. I assume it means that past tombs has been made to look like stone, but were actually wood or something, however this could probably be clarified in the article a bit.

   Someone needs to watch their grammar when dealing with plural subjects - I caught a few above, but it's possible I may have missed some.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Lead section provides a good summary for the article.

   I'm putting this here as I'm not sure where else it would fit - It seems as through there are only a bare minimum of Chinese Characters used in the article. I know there are conflicting methods of romanizing names, and inclusion of the actual name in Chinese could be helpful for one with a background in that language. This is done elsewhere for those people with articles, I know, but a few don't have them, such as General Li Jinxing in the "History" section. Likewise, other terms could benefit from the Chinese translation (i.e., peizang mu, lead section)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Nice work with the Harvard references.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Perhaps a few less references than there are for many GA's, but they are well used throughout. A subject such as this isn't likely to have too many sources of information anyway, I suppose.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Were this to be expanded, I'd recommend making "Spirit Path," "Tombs," and "Murals" all subsections of a larger "Appearance" section or something. It seems like you have plenty of information to provide descriptions and interpretations of the layout, which can be handled in more detail. To balance this, the history section could be expanded as well, perhaps with a brief overview of how tombs were used in past dynasties.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Well done. This passes a GA review, however I definitely think this could be expanded at least to a good A-class. Send this over to peer review for some more suggestions and keep up the good work! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Great! I think you've given a fair assessment of the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)