Wikipedia:Peer review/Cai Lun/archive1
Cai Lun[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to get it to GA and then FA status in the future. This article is about the traditional inventor of paper, Cai Lun. Cai Lun is often neglected in history, and not known well outside of China, hence the need for this article. Because of this, there are very few sources with much information on him and many have contradicting information. I've done my best to weed out the truth (usually easy to due based on dating and such) and noted in the article itself whenever modern accounts have different information. Any comments at all would be appreciated, especially those on if his place in history is properly conveyed/understandable from the article. (That is, is it clear that paper was around before him but he perfected and standardized the paper-making process to modern standards?)
Thanks, Aza24 (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, @Aza24:! This is really great work, congrats on your effort. His significance is well stated in the Standardization of paper section. One thing I would maybe suggest in the lead is actually slightly unrelated; perhaps it is just personal preference, but a lot of space is given to describing imperial intrigue/his ascent in the court, which is interesting and well developed in the body as well, but given that his main claim to fame is based on his invention, the weight given to other aspects of his life is perhaps a little unbalanced. Clearing some of that up might make his role in papermaking more clear as well. Just a thought! WhinyTheYounger (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- @WhinyTheYounger: Thanks for your edits and comments! I wasn't if the lead was too heavy with life information so it's good to hear someone else's view on it. I'll be sure to trim it down. Aza24 (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, @Aza24:! This is really great work, congrats on your effort. His significance is well stated in the Standardization of paper section. One thing I would maybe suggest in the lead is actually slightly unrelated; perhaps it is just personal preference, but a lot of space is given to describing imperial intrigue/his ascent in the court, which is interesting and well developed in the body as well, but given that his main claim to fame is based on his invention, the weight given to other aspects of his life is perhaps a little unbalanced. Clearing some of that up might make his role in papermaking more clear as well. Just a thought! WhinyTheYounger (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)