Talk:Shu Xiuwen

Cause of death: persecution

That's not the real cause of death though, right? It's gotta be something more specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SailingOn (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

That was added by an IP vandal, who made a bunch of random changes. I've reverted them. -Zanhe (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shu Xiuwen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 18:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Any and all of my comments are up for discussion. Once complete, I'll be using this review for points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Lead

   The lead summarizes the life section fine, but needs something from the Legacy section too. I suggest a sentence that she was an influence on later generations of Chinese actors.

   Early life

   no concern

   Early career

   "where she met Wei Heling, later a famous film actor" - He's not mentioned again. Is this significant enough to include?

   Wartime

   no concern

   Communist China

   Is her cause of death known? "By persecution" seems vague.

   Legacy

   "of her age" - suggest "of her era"

   "she convincingly played two vastly" - convincingly is an opinion that needs to be removed or attributed to someone. vastly should be removed.

   "Her skillful performances exerted great influence" - suggest "Her performances greatly influenced"

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Not exactly an MOS issue, but the bottom of the article has a red notice saying "Lua error in Module:Authority_control at line 397: Tried to read nil global createRow." I'm not sure what caused this, but it needs to be corrected.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   no concern

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   no concern

   C. It contains no original research:

   no concern

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   no concern. AGF for the non-English sources.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I'm not familiar with the topic, but nothing obvious is missing.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   no concern

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   no concern outside of points raised in 1A.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   no concern

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   no concern

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Please add the year of the photo to the captions for the infobox and the last picture. Also, I think the page would look nicer if the second image was aligned left. This is not GA requirement and if you disagree it won't affect it passing.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I've finished looking this over. Pass is pending the minor copyedit issues raised above. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Thanks for your review. I've edited the article to incorporate almost all of your suggestions. Unfortunately I've been unable to find a source that mentions her exact cause of death. Cultural Revolution is a sensitive topic in China and most Chinese sources do not provide great details about the era. Her entry in Routledge's Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Women does not have the exact cause either. As for the "Lua error", it seems to be a temporary error caused by the Template:authority control. It's fine on my computer. Do you still see the error message? -Zanhe (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

If the cause of death is unknown, then it's fine as is. And yes, the lua error does appear to be gone. Nice work on this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)