Talk:Book of Wu/GA2

GA review

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.

---

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

Nominator: Kzyx (talk · contribs) 18:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 12:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm very interested to learn about this ancient piece of lost literature. Thanks for nominating this. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• This review is part of my pledge for the review at Talk:Mohamed Saïl/GA1. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Comments

Compilation

• Sun Quan should be introduced as the first Wu emperor.
  • Done
• "probably around 250" "around" is already ambiguous, so I'm not sure if "probably" is needed as well.
  • I now see this wording is lifted directly from one of the cited sources; see next comment for fixing this.
• Per MOS:APPROXDATE, the use of the circa template and "c." is preferred to repeated uses of "around". Considering there are three approximate dates in this section (with one case, "in around 273", reading a little odd) and one in the lead, I'd recommend using the circa template.
  • Done
• "a memorial" A memorial?
  • Linked to Memorial (law)
• "Records of the Three Kingdoms's" -> "Records of the Three Kingdoms'"
  • Done
• "According to a memorial written by Hua He [...]" This is a rather long, meandering sentence that is rather confusing to read. I'd recommend trimming it down a bit or finding a way to break it up.
  • Done
• Spotcheck: [2] Verified.
• "In 252, [...]" This is another long and confusing sentence that could be broken up.
  • Done
• Spotcheck: [2] Verified.
• "In his memorial, [...]" Another very long sentence. This could easily be broken up by beginning a new sentence at "But Australian historian Rafe de Crespigny [...]"
  • Done
• Spotcheck: [8] Verified.
• Per MOS:PERSONAL, when at the beginning of a sentence, the name "de Crespigny" should be capitalised to "De Crespigny".
  • Done
• "also notes that it is recorded that when" Think this could be trimmed down to "also notes that when"
  • Done
• This is another bit that's rather closely paraphrased from the source. I'd recommend giving it a wee rewrite to ensure we're not cribbing too closely from de Crespigny's work.
• "due to interference" What interference?
  • Changed to "due to external factors, including the deaths of several of its members." Hopefully that's a bit better.
• "No more details about Liang Guang's death are recorded." I'd recommend moving this to after the details of Zhou Zhao's death.
  • Done
• "he would be executed" -> "he was executed".
  • Done
• "at the age of more than seventy" Is it necessary to know what age he was executed at?
  • Not really, so I removed that detail
• Spotcheck: [12] Verified.
• "for involvement in a mistaken strategy" A mistaken strategy? What was the strategy? What was mistaken about it?
• This last paragraph is also rather closely paraphrased from de Crespigny. I'd strongly suggest a rewrite of this article, as this sometimes approaches word-for-word replications of the source, with only minor changes and rearranging.
• It strikes me that a lot of this section is about the compilers and authors of the text, and the challenges in compiling it, but not much is about the compilation of the text itself. Do we have any information about that which we could include?

Political controversies

• Why is this section titled "controversies" when only one is listed?
• If there's only one controversy being discussed, there is no need for a subsection header.
• "Yu Xi, [...]" This is another long sentence that could do with being broken up or trimmed.
• On second thought, I wonder if this could be merged into the "Content" section.
  • Done
• "This seems to imply" This is very ambiguous wording to be using in wikivoice. According to whom can it interpreted in this way?
  • Added "according to Xiaofei Tian"

Content

• Spotcheck: [9] Verified.
• "However, in the annals" Why "However"? I don't understand how this sentence contradicts the previous one.
• "the quotation is rather irrelevant" Irrelevant to what? According to whom?
• "are also rather lacking" Lacking how? According to whom?
• Spotcheck: [9] Verified.
• "The Book of Sui [...]" I think this paragraph would be better placed at the beginning of the section, as an introduction to the content, before going into where it popped up in other places.
  • Done
• Spotcheck: [9] Verified.

Lead

• "lost history" Link to lost literary work.
  • Done
• "The other two of the Three Kingdoms" This could be mentioned elsewhere in the article, rather than in the lead.
  • I moved it to the end of the Content section, which might be a better place for it
• "They were all written to follow the pattern" All, including the Book of Wu itself?
  • Rephrased it a bit

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

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

   Prose is sometimes unclear and often not concise enough.

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

   There's a couple minor cases where it doesn't follow the Manual of Style.

2. 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:

   All sources are well-presented.

   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):

   All reliable sources are cited inline.

   C. It contains no original research:

   All source spotchecks verify the content.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   There's some uncomfortable cases of close paraphrasing of de Crespigny that need to be rewritten.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Knowing a bit more about the compilation of the book itself, alongside what happened to its compilers, would be useful.

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

   Very focused with no major deviations from the subject.

4. Is it neutral?

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

   All neutral, without taking a clear stance one way or another.

5. Is it stable?

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

   No major changes since GA nomination. Only revert was of a minor map addition 12 months ago.

6. 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:

   No images provided.

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

   No images provided. An image of Sun Quan or a map of the Eastern Wu would be nice for readers, I think.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This was an informative article, although it has issues with prose and close paraphrasing that are currently holding it back from meeting the GA criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, I will be happy to give the article another read over again. Feel free to ping me once the comments have been addressed and/or if you have any questions. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kzyx: Hey, this review has been open for a week now. Do you plan on addressing these comments soon? --Grnrchst (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah Kzyx (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I have put the review on hold pending a response from you. I notice that the previous GA review was closed due to a lack of prompt response, so I would strongly advise you to begin making progress soon. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I've responded to some of your comments now, and I'll tackle the rest later. Kzyx (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for getting started! Looking forward to seeing more progress on this :) --Grnrchst (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kzyx: I'm still waiting for some of these issues to be addressed. Please see to them when you can. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kzyx: This review has now been open for a month and I'm still waiting on you to address these issues, which are preventing it from meeting GA criteria 1, 2d and 3a. If no further progress is made by the end of next week, I'll be closing this review. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kzyx: This review has now been on hold for one month, and I'm still not seeing any progress on the issues related to clarity of prose, close paraphrasing and broadness. Do you have any intention to finish this review? If not, I will close this review and mark it as failed tomorrow. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm marking the review as failed, as the nominator has been completely unresponsive to repeated requests that they address the remaining issues. The remainder of these comments should be addressed before re-nominating. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2025 (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.