| Rate
|
Attribute
|
Review Comment
|
| 1. Well-written:
|
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
|
- Going to go through the prose today. I will probably make any small edits needed myself and if there are major issues, which I don't expect, write them up here.
- The prose looks good. Pass.
|
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
|
- Pass, no issues conforming to style.
|
| 2. Verifiable with no original research:
|
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
|
- Well-referenced, well-organized citations. Some longer sections with only one citation, but all link back somewhere.
|
|
|
2b. 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).
|
- Here I do have a concern. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says that undergraduate and doctoral theses can be used, but with caution, especially if they are not peer-reviewed. This article appears to rely heavily on Kang So-Jeon's work - probably the source of 50+% of citations. This includes an 2005 master's work, two published papers from 2006/2007, and finally a PhD from 2012. Was the PhD peer-reviewed? Was the 2005 work peer-reviewed? I can't tell. While I think the source is probably fine, I'd like to make sure, as the article relies on Kang's work for so much.
|
|
|
2c. it contains no original research.
|
- Pass. No original research found, assuming good faith on Korean-language sources.
|
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
|
- I cannot read Korean, and most sources are non-English, so WP:AGF - assuming the act of translation also reduces concern as identical phrasing is impossible and paraphrasing more natural.
|
| 3. Broad in its coverage:
|
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
|
- Very comprehensive. Pass.
|
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
|
- I was concerned that the article might be over-detailed in places, but on close inspection, it is not. The only thing that might approach the line is the first section, on the myth associated with the Mengdu. If you are up for it, I'd recommend a shorter summary of the myth (maybe 2 paragraphs) and spinning off the current full text into a separate, linked article. However, I don't think this is essential for GA status - just a good improvement. The section should focus more on the myth from a cultural/social perspective rather than a "plot summary" of the myth itself, if that makes sense.
|
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
|
|
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
|
- Extremely stable, no edit wars.
|
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
|
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
|
- Most of the images look fine. The third one, of the shamanic ritual with the banners - can you provide a link to a page stating it is distributed with CC 4.0 International? Not seeing it. Especially as the author is unknown I want to make sure we're good on that. Also, some of the images from the National Folk Museum seem to have links to different records than the images show - File:홍수일 심방 산판 (민속 77249).jpg's link goes to a similar but distinct image. Can you clarify? I'm translating Korean so I may be missing something on the museum's website.
|
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
|
|
|
|
7. Overall assessment.
|
|
