I feel that the article may fail criteria 1(a). After going through and correcting many minor errors, I feel uncomfortable that I, a single editor, am finding so much to fix. I believe a thorough copyedit is in order.
The popular culture section. This was completely absent when promoted. I feel that it should be removed as trivia, but such sections are still a sticky subject with many.
There are more references given than in-line citations provided. A tad worrisome for a FA article. The number of external links is also rather large.
These are just some of the few issues that I'm seeing. I'm not the best at this, which is why I'm bringing it to the attention of FAR.--SeizureDog (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I have done a bit of snipping of the article. Point 2; I have removed the list of pop culture references. I do feel a section is needed as the qin in pop culture is an important development in the qin's reaching out to wider audiences and recognition. Point 3; I have cut the list down to a few which I think is more acceptable, unless you want it to convert totally to prose. Point 4; I have moved much of the references and external links to the discussion page and I have kept very the important ones (either cited in the article or important for further reading which I feel are required to stay as a gateway for more about the qin). I'll leave Point 1 for my colleagues to decide upon and carry out.
Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), citations (1c), and organization (2).Marskell (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have bolded the transliterations in the first line, and added WG at one other point. This should probably be done consistently at first references to Chinese words; readers who come here from Van Gulik or other 1940's sources should not be lost.
Much of this article plainly comes from Van Gulik and the two translations cited; anything which doesn't (and is controversial) should have a source, preferably in English. We are not the Chinese WP and cannot assume that our readers know Chinese. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 16:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see this interesting article retained as an FA, but there are problems throughout in the prose.
Anderson will love me for saying so, but ... MOS breach: ... " ...," (location of final punctuation after the closing quotes). Em dashes are preferred unspaced (see MOS).
I just HATE the Chinese script that speckles the main text—who on EARTH can read it among English-speakers? Very very few, and do they really need it even if they can? It's obstructive, intrusive, and doesn't add to the visual look of the page. There's a Chinese-language article link in the left margin, so why not keep the Chinese characters there, where readers might understand them. More important might be what Chinese language the phonological information is given in: Mandarin?
"The guqin is not to be confused with the guzheng, another Chinese long zither also without frets, but with moveable bridges under each string." The opening sets up a bossy tone. "Another" and "also" are not both needed. "But" is not logical.
"Other incorrect classifications, mainly from music compact discs, include "harp" or "table-harp"." No, "and", not "or", which is very exclusive in English.
Awkward integration of ideas into sentences: "The guqin is a very quiet instrument, with a range of about four octaves, and its open strings are tuned in the bass register. Its lowest pitch is about two octaves below middle C, or the lowest note on the cello."
"Also" again, not needed.
"It should be noted"—MOS breach and, oh, "also". Comments about blues better further down where they can be referenced. Tony(talk) 11:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable with this one either, but not sure how to fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)