Talk:Tohui/GA1

GA review

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

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.

---

Nominator: OpalYosutebito (talk · contribs) 01:55, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Issac I Navarro (talk · contribs) 02:15, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

For transparency, this is my first reviewing a page, so I'm going to try and be quite thorough by taking a look through WP:GACR6.

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 29, 2026, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

2. Verifiable?:

3. Broad in coverage?:

4. Neutral point of view?:

5. Stable?:

6. Images?:

At this stage, I am afraid I would not be able to pass the page to GA. My main concern is WP:GACR criterion 3.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2026 (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.

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):

   The sources that are currently being used, do provide useful information; however, I don't think that they have yet to be used to their full potential. Also, the MOS:LEAD and WP:FACTS may need some adjustments.

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):

   all looks good with a check from https://copyvios.toolforge.org/

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is rather short, and I do not think it currently provides broad enough coverage of Tohuí's life. I don't think it is currently sufficient in its coverage to warrant GA. There are several aspects of Tohuí's life and significance that could be expanded upon. For example, possibly discussing the death of the earlier cub Xen-Li and the history of how that ties into Tohui. (I am seeing a source here that would cover this) I would also like to see more coverage of Xin Xin, as her connection to Tohuí is direct, by being Tohuí's daughter. While I must admit, I speak very little Spanish myself, with a brief search I was able to turn up a couple potentially useful sources. Such as , ,

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Parts seem to be written in a promo-like way; such as, "boosted the zoo's tourism" is somewhat stronger than I would expect.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, I don't feel comfortable passing the article at this stage. My main concern would be 3. I would particularly recommend expanding the material on Tohuí's early life, public reception, illness and death, and her daughter Xin Xin. Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2026 (UTC)