Talk:Shunten/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion 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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 21:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 18:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll take this review. Comments to follow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
General comments
[edit]Thought I recognised the name, he's the legendary cousin of the alleged Genghis Khan! Funny old world.
- "The official histories of the Ryukyu Kingdom" might want to specify that they ruled/lived on Okinawa.
- Fixed. - G
- "against Riyū, who had usurped" was Riyū a god too?
- One of the sources called Shunten the first human ruler, and now I realized it was probably not something they thought about much. Clarified that lol. - G
- "He gained the recognition" should the "the" be there?
- Fixed. - G
- "as the overlord of Okinawa chieftans in 1187" unless you're paying attention to the dates, this sounds like a different event to the revolt against Riyū.
- Fixed. - G
- "when his grandson Gihon disappeared into the forests and was succeed by his regent Eiso" a) typo b) possibly the forest detail is unnecessary?
- Fair point. - G
- "Invasion of Ryukyu" is the capitalised "i" needed?
- Fixed. - G
- If he unified Okinawa, maybe say "the overlord of all Okinawa chieftains" in the first lead paragraph?
- Good idea. - G
- "The Chūzan Seikan (lit. Reflections on Chūzan)" is this one of the histories?
- Yes, clarified. - G
- "Japanese suiden, meaning "flooded paddy"" ... is that meant to mean something?
- I don't get if Zenchū was making a bigger point there, no. I can remove it if need be.
Looked at Smits 2019 and Ito 2011:
- I can't find "Okinawa would not be unified until the 15th century" in Smits p.153.
- Oops, I think I forgot a 2024 cite there. Added. - G
- Ito 2011 p. 89 fn.29 seems to indicate that Taira Shidehara's book was published in 1899.
- Added. - G
- details about Kato Sango's 1906 critique are found around p.92.
Otherwise all good. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: Thank you very much! Fixed stuff up. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:20, 21 October 2024 (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.