Talk:Tea processing/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Jerem43 (talk • contribs • count) 20:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose):

   ✓ Pass The prose is of excellent quality

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   ✓ Pass It is properly formatted, however there are some issues. Issues fixed --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (references):

   ✓ Pass The references are of high quality, I did translate the Chinese language into English and noted that the originals are in Chinese.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   ✓ Pass The sources are all scholarly journals and are iminatly reliable.

   c. (OR):

   ✓ Pass None that I can identify

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   ✓ Pass - The article covers the major steps of tea manufacture.

   b. (focused):

   ✓ Pass The article is tightly focused on the subject.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   ✓ Pass The article adherers to the rules of neutrality, and has no perceptible bias.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   ✓ Pass A check of the history shows no major issues with stability.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   ✓ Pass All images are meet the criteria for usage

   • Y File:Assam.jpg is a Commons image that is in the public domain

   • Y File:Teaprocessing.svg is a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licensed image

   • Y File:Tea plantation picking.JPG is a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licensed image

   • Y File:Tea Factory Srimongol Sylhet Bangladesh 5.JPG is a Commons image that is in the public domain

   • Y File:Assam CTC Hanamizuki 2009.JPG is a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licensed image

   • Y File:Da Hong Pao Oolong tea leaf close.jpg is a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licensed image

   • Y File:Bai Hao Yin Zhen tea leaf (Fuding).jpg is a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licensed image

   • Y File:Xiaguan Te Ji Tuo Cha 2004.jpg is a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licensed image

   • Y File:Huoshan Huangya tea leaves close.jpg is a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licensed image

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   ✓ Pass All images have captions that are clear and precise.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

1. 1b. There is a minor issue with the lead, citations are not needed in the lead if the information is found and cited in the body of the article. Since this is a non-controversial subject, please make sure that the lead itself is free of citations and that the information in the lead is with in the body of the article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for the review. I can certainly remove the citations on the lead of the article since, as you said, much of the content there is repeated in the article itself. I suppose the GA review process can conclude after this? -- Sjschen (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

   I was waiting for your reply, I will continue asap. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

   The citations have been moved, some of them were not used in the rest of the article and has been removed. -- Sjschen (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

2. Citations - Could you finish the translations from Chinese into English? I did most of them, but there are two or three that Google Translate couldn't handle. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   Done-- Sjschen (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

3. Citations - There are several passages that are not cited. Because of the technical nature of the process and some of the claims, could you please cite them? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

    • Picking - The whole back end of this section is un-sourced

   • Done -- Sjschen (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

    • Bruising - The last sentence makes a claim that needs to be sourced

   • Done -- Sjschen (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

    • Rolling/Shaping - The whole back end of this section is un-sourced

   • Done -- Sjschen (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

    • Aging/Curing - The last sentence makes a claim that needs to be sourced

   • Done -- Sjschen (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

    • White tea - The whole back end of this section is un-sourced, with several claims that need to be verified

   • Done-- Sjschen (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

    • Oolong tea - The last sentence makes a claim that needs to be sourced

   • Done-- Sjschen (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

    • Post fermented tea - The last sentence makes a claim that needs to be sourced

   • This is more a statement of general fact, you can't find ANY other kind of post-fermented tea as easily-- Sjschen (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

    • Yellow tea - The last sentence makes a claim that needs to be sourced

   • Done. Can't be verified, deleted.-- Sjschen (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

4. Engvar - The article has several places where it uses various national forms of spelling, could you please proof read it and insure that it is of one spelling format. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   Should be done ("color" and "flavor") -- Sjschen (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Other issues

What's the status on this review? No comments in a few weeks. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

From the indications of Jeremy it looks fine except for citations in the introduction. This has since been corrected, however there has been no reply from him. I'm not sure what's going on.-- Sjschen (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Real world issues cropped up and I had to deal with them. I'll have this finished by Sunday. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey just stumbled onto this article, and wanted to say i think this looks really good. I saw a documentary on the history channel about this process (I am definitely no expert), and this article does a good job of summing it up. MilkStraw532 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MilkStraw532 Thanks for reading. I have a feeling that many of the very general documentaries such as that on the History use Wiki articles such as this for their own content. -- Sjschen (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)