Talk:Sun Tzu/GA1

GA Review[edit]

I will in the process of reviewing the article. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
ON HOLD

Image:SunTzu.jpg does not give it's source, date of original, thus PD status is disputed. Please fill the details.
Sun Bin is stated to be a grandson(Biography) or son(lead) of Sun Tzu. Most Google books i used as ref, used "descendant", no results for "grandson". Does the reference really say that directly?
"Related text" looks like out of context.
1-2 key quotes from "The Art of War" would be a nice addition. (NOT a GAC requirement)
A section on the "Historicity" of Sun Tzu is required as this is one of the main aspects of Sun Tzu, covering different theories. Which Historians say is a mythical figure? why? which Historians consider him as real? which time period do they place him in?
"In some histories, such as the biography written in the 2nd century BC by the historian Sima Qian," which are the other histories?
The name "Sun Wu" is not mentioned.

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will address these points over the next few days. Thank you for the review. Vassyana (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the image, I had previously found an academic site relating it as an ink print in the public domain. I am unable to find the reference again at the current moment, but I am both continuing to look and contacting another academic who used the image (and therefore may be able to verify its PD status to OTRS). The reference says Sun Bin is his grandson. The lead is an error. The "related text" section is drawn from a source on Sun Tzu and the Art of War. Regarding historicity, I will reconsult the sources and look for additional sources to ensure the article accurately represents the reliable sources on that point. I will look for a source regarding the name "Sun Wu". Vassyana (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a dispute in the historians. Here Sun Bin is called the great grand son [1]. Google books give just 1 hit for "Sun Tzu" "Sun Bin" "grandson". [2]. I think "descendant" is a safer word, accomodating all theories.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot keep article on hold indefinitely. I will decide on pass or fail depending on the status of article on 30 Sept.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity needs to cover both opinions: for and against for NPOV and also needs names. "skeptical scholars" is a too vague term.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of sources that even bother to touch on the historicity of Sun Tzu present the matter in these general terms, or some variation thereof. NPOV requires reflecting the body of sources accurately and since the clear majority of sources handle the subtopic in this fashion, we should handle it in that fashion. I can add a little more detail, such as the skeptical camp pointing out the lack of contemporary records and the traditionalist camp pointing to Sima Qian, but going further would be out of step with the sources. Vassyana (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA PASS.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting "Sun Tzu" in philosophers.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was adding more about the points used by traditionalists and skeptics, as I noted above. While the particulars of who's who are not covered well, sourcing the general points they raise is not very difficult. I'll refrain from expanding much more to avoid unbalancing the article, but I think a reader can get a good idea of why each side feels the way they do. Vassyana (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not refrain from expansion, an expansion will probably enhance the article. Also, if you want, Template:Infobox Philosopher can be used into Writer Infobox, i added.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clearer, I meant that I would hold off on expanding the historicity section for now. Certainly, more expansion in general would be a good thing. I just believe that other portions of the article should be expanded first to avoid an imbalance. (For example, the biography itself could use more examples and expansion.) Vassyana (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]