Difference between revisions of "Talk:Ling Shuhua (1900-1990)"
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Best, [[User:Root|Root]] 12:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC) | Best, [[User:Root|Root]] 12:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| − | It's well-orgnized and I like it! | + | It's well-orgnized and I like it!--[[User:Mark|Mark]] ([[User talk:Mark|talk]]) 07:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 09:09, 10 June 2016
Very well organized, except the first block. I think you put too much in the Childhood section. I noticed she was born in 1900, yet you included stuff all the way into the 1920's in that section. I would put the stuff from her teenage years on up into a different section. Mingemperor 17:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
It looks good, but you have a lot more information in the first section than all the rest. I would just add more to the other sections. And I agree with the comment above.Pips 17:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that it looks really good! I noticed that you changed the childhood section to life, good call! Ellafitzgerald 13:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I enjoyed the motivations portion of the page. I thought the article was very well thought out and professionally done. --Foot 19:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
There are a few grammar and punctuation errors, another read through could help with that. Agreed, the first section needs to be broken up a bit. It reads like is should be several paragraphs not just one. Thanks for the list of her writings! And good job acknowledging the short comings of your sources. When you have so few sources, the temptation is to accept them with out question. Perhaps another "read through" would be a good idea. Dekeo 21:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I had no idea that she married Chen Yuan, I learned a lot about his movement in my studies I can understand why she became more political after marriage. The long lists of publications tends to look like filler text. The article is very well written. Random1 01:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear Matt,
Looks really good to me, I also like your perfect photo source and license indication. Things which you may improve next time:
- A little bit longer, especially more valuing comments
- You have indicate the sources in the text, at least one per paragraph, but don't just refer to Wikipedia or the summary I gave you as a link. It is better to use the paper sources and indicate the page numbers.
Best, Root 12:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
It's well-orgnized and I like it!--Mark (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)