Talk:Ink wash painting/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jujiang - hi! I'm happy to be reviewing this article. While I haven't finished my first run-through of the GA review yet, it'd be great if you could start addressing some of the issues, particularly with sourcing. There are a number of sourcing issues (detailed below in 2b) that will be a significant obstacle to reaching GA together if they're not addressed. Thank you for your work on this article so far. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ganesha811: Thank you very much for reviewing this article. This article was completed by many Wiki friends, and I contributed about two-thirds. I will try my best to improve this article in accordance with your suggestions. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jujiang, the prose and layout changes are big, and will take a lot of work to incorporate. Right now the "lists" are sort of halfway in-between actual lists and prose, and I'm glad you agree that they should be changed to one end of the spectrum or the other. About how long do you think it will take you to make these substantial improvements? If you'd like, I can put the nomination on hold (say for two weeks) and take the time pressure off, so you can make the changes you want before I come back to reassess in a little while. What do you think? Ganesha811 (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ganesha811: I already have reference materials and it will take about 2-3 days to complete. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jujiang, ok! Ping me when you're ready for me to assess again or if you want clarification on any of my comments. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha811: Ok. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ganesha811: I have improved the article according to your suggestion, please review it again. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jujiang, sure, I'll take another look. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jujiang, as you can see below, the prose issues will definitely take some time to work on - it's a big task! The small changes you made, while improvements, haven't gotten us to GA status yet. I would recommend that you let me put this GA review on hold for two weeks while you work on it, and then I can return to assess again. The other option is that I don't pass the GA nomination for now, giving you all the time you need to improve the article, and then you can re-nominate it when you are done. What do you think? Ganesha811 (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ganesha811: Don't worry, I'm writing the list into some prose confidently, and I can finish it in about two weeks. Ping you when I'm ready for you to assess again. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jujiang, given the timeline, I'm going to put the nomination on hold for two weeks. Ping me if you need me. See you on the 29th! Ganesha811 (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha811: Ok, Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ganesha811: I have made some adjustments and modifications to the article. Review it again when you are free. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jujiang, sure, I'll take another look this weekend. On a quick glance over, it looks much improved, though there are still issues with information provided in the lead that is not discussed in further detail elsewhere. I will specify the issues in my re-review. Ganesha811 (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jujiang, I'm pleased to say this now passes GA review! Congratulations to you and everyone else who worked on the article. Thank you for your hard work during this review. I'll do the needful now. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ganesha811: Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. Thank you for improving the grammar and details. Thank you for carefully reviewing and approving this article "Yes" to GA. --Jujiang (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I think the biggest prose issue with this article is the 5th and 6th sections. These are, essentially, lists, but it is not clear to me why they are in the order they are, why some artists were chosen for inclusion and not others, and what the purpose of these sections is. The lists are semi-chronological, but not entirely. I think there are two options here - to convert these into more organized lists using templates and tables, or to convert the sections to prose, adding more discussion, analysis, and comparison on the artists. Have a read over of MOS:LIST and decide which you want to do. As it is, it feels too indiscriminate and it is difficult for the reader to take in the large amount of useful information presented in an organized way. Your comments and suggestions are very good, and I will improve these two sections. Thank you. Thank you for your improvements. While they helped, I don't think they addressed all of the issues with prose. The sections listing Chinese and other East Asian artists still need attention. I think they should be either a)turned into a fully developed list that is in a table b)turrned into prose paragraphs. There are other prose issues, but they are secondary to this big issue. What do you think of my suggestion? Ganesha811 (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] Okay, let me think about it and modify it. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] Hello Ganesha811: Can you show me a small part of the table? I need you to demonstrate a little the table so that I can understand what you mean. I'll do the rest. I'm not familiar with the technology yet. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] If you are not familiar to "turned into a fully developed list that is in a table", there is another solution "turrned into prose paragraphs". How about choose "turrned into prose paragraphs"?--Wolfch (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] Jujiang, some examples of good lists can be found at WP:FL, such as List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings), List of paintings by Thomas Cole, or Description of the Western Isles of Scotland. There are many different ways to make a good list, but those ought to give you some ideas. Or, as Wolfch mentioned, you could work on turning these paragraphs into prose. NEW: Re-review: there are still a number of prose issues that need to be fixed. For instance, beyond typos, I'm not sure what these sentences are trying to say: "China's Ming and Qing Dynasties marked an art form with the Oriental characteristics. Ink wash painting is the carrier of this art form. Japan and Korea have also become East Asian countries following this artistic style. The theoretical system of the Southren School and the Northren School has a great influence on the painting concept and practice of East Asian." They also seem to be repeated later on in the 'Other countries in East Asia' section. Yes, I'm improving it. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] I would recommend re-organizing what you have written so that 'The style of Chinese painters' and 'Other countries in East Asia' sections are incorporated under 'History', which seems to fit them well. Check for repetition and typos. Other sentences are a little ungrammatical/awkward, but I can fix those details myself if needed. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] Hi Ganesha811: I have adjusted the chapters of the article, and now the structure is much clearer. I also reorganized paragraphs, added and rewritten parts of the content. Please revise the grammar and details when you are free. Thanks. --Jujiang (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ok, Jujiang, taking another look today. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] Pass - I put in some grammar edits and removed repetitious sentences, and I think we're good on prose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Some more lead incorporation issues - hanging scrolls and handscrolls are both mentioned in the lead but not expanded upon and further described in the body. The tendency of Korean artists to mix colour with black-and-white is also mentioned only in the lead and not elsewhere. Please do a readthrough of the lead and make sure it is a summary of the article as a whole, and that all of the things mentioned in the lead are summarized versions of material described more fully later in the article. Same as above. Pass - lead has been improved considerably.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	A number of source concerns: What is Boya Renwu - is it an independent, reliable source? Yes. Could you expand on this? I cannot read Chinese, so my own ability to learn about this source is limited. This website can search for person profiles according to two clues of Chinese historical dynasty and region. And there are further links about this person. Could you translate and describe the "Ci hai" source? Done Thanks, looks better. What is the Chinese Text Project - is it an independent, reliable source? A book. Yes, fixed. The "China Online Museum" says it copies content from Wikipedia. I don't think we can consider it reliable on that basis. The website is OK. I disagree. WP:CIRC explicitly states that websites that copy material from Wikipedia should not be used as sources. It and any information it references should be removed. Removed. The "Pu Hua Brief Biography" source link is broken. Done Is the Wu Zuoren foundation a reliable, independent source, or is it self-published? He was replaced by a better painter, Fu Baoshi. We need a source for Fu Baoshi that is not the China Online Museum. Done The Sotheby's auction site sources do not contain the information cited and I'm not sure it can be considered a reliable source. Deleted. What is going on with cite #77 ("TWA 2013")? Deleted. The Yonhap news cite redirects to the main page. Can you do this for me? I do not understand the meaning. What I mean is that when I click on the link for cite #72, which should take me to this site (http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/n_feature/2011/02/21/58/4901000000AEN20110221006600315F.HTML), I am instead redirected to https://en.yna.co.kr/. This suggests to me that that webpage has been taken down. Done Is art2me.org an independent, reliable source? Deleted. What is citation #82, koreandb? Done Pass - Source issues have been addressed - assume good faith for those things I cannot confirm myself.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Hold for now. Copyvio finds one problematic area, several paragraphs are identical to the Description here. I'm inclined to believe they are copying from Wiki and not the other way around, but will still have to do a manual spot-check on other sources. You're right. That's it. Thank you. Pass spot check. No copyvio found.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No major areas uncovered, based on other reliable tertiary sources.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass on this.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	A possible issue - the lead states: "In China and Japan, but much less so in Korea, ink wash painting formed a distinct stylistic tradition, with a different set of artists working in it from those doing other types of painting." This statement is not cited, and I can't find it in the rest of the article. The lead should reflect the content of the article, so material needs to be added in an appropriate place in the body discussing this judgement. Done Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues here.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Out of curiosity, why was the lead image chosen for the lead as opposed to any other? Because this image is a typical ink wash painting using ink and wash boldly. Image captions making claims should be cited or directly next to cited text - "Mountain landscapes are by far the most common scenes...", "high-ranking but cantankerous...." etc should be cited or moved accordingly. Done Thanks. In general I think the section 'Chinese artists and their influence on East Asia' and the gallery there needs some re-organization. Let me think about some more specific suggestions and return to the issue after the review has progressed a little more. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

Quick drive-by comments: the first sentence has grammar errors in it: "and also in East Asian" doesn't connect to the rest of it. Also, I'd suggest fixing the all-caps in the see also section. I'm glad to see an important article like this being nominated; best of luck with the process! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. I have fixed the all-caps and the grammar error of the first sentence. --Jujiang (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]