Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a22b9229d8581ae0

Jump to content

Talk:Ha Ming

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 17 days ago by Min968 in topic Did you know nomination

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.


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

Nominator: Min968 (talk · contribs) 06:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Jishara (talk · contribs) 20:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply


@Min968: this is very, very good and quite close. Just one tiny thing and then it's good to go. ping me when it's done. Jishara (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jishara Done. Min968 (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Min968: approved. Jishara (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Well-written, well-prosed, understandable, and with a good following of MoS in the five appropriate sections.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Almost perfect here - reference list is present and in keeping with MoS, all controversial claims are cited, and no signs of copyvio from either Earwig or my own search. A spot-check of 8 sources turns up one minor problem - source 2 in its use at the end doesn't confirm that each book was one volume. Once this is fixed, it should work well.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Covers this guy's life really well, with coverage that is both broad and focused on him.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Neutral and well-accredited for any potentially controversial claims, including being very clear where claims come from.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No signs of edit wars or anything else unstable - stability worked really well.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Both images are correctly attributed and used properly with a relevant caption - no problem here.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold.
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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]

  • Source: Guida, Donatella (2018). "Aliens and Emperors: Faithful Mongolian Officials in the Ming History" (PDF). Ming Qing Yanjiu. 22: p. 129
Improved to Good Article status by Min968 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 11 past nominations.

Min968 (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2026 (UTC).Reply