Векочел, the nominator asked me to look at this, since it appears that you began the review at 08:58 and passed the nomination 11 minutes later. I do not understand how you would have had time to closely read the article for prose, much less check against all of the GA criteria, including verifying the sources and their content against the article. It is troubling that you didn't find a single correction that needed to be made: not a typo, punctuation error, or some infelicitous prose.
I then took a look at a few of your other reviews, and for the most they're also passes without any comments or corrections or requests for fixes. And after that, I looked at Cai Lun article, and found a number of prose issues. Just as an example, the second paragraph under "Global influence" could use a copyedit, as the first several sentences have missing or not-quite-right words, unclear referents, and other problems.
I would like to suggest that you revert your passage of this GA nomination and get a second opinion, or perhaps a GAN mentor; this appears to be representative of your review output, and you need some guidance on how a complete review explicitly covering all the criteria should be conducted. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for putting me back in my place. I suppose I was overconfident of my ability to carry out a review. It certainly at times is not easy being a Wikipedian, let alone a “good” Wikipedian. Векочел (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I've shortened a bit. If there's specific sentences you see as unnecessary do let me know, but otherwise I would prefer not to shorten too much more since so many of our readers will read nothing other than the lead. Aza24 (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Indeed, I had added an archive bot but was unsure how to work it, I've inquired at the tea house so this should be resolved shortly Aza24 (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article history also appears stable
Some of the sources (Blake and both Eyferth books) aren't used in references - they should be removed or listed below as further reading
Done, Indeed, these sources have some non-historical Chinese legends that I was unsure about including, for now I'll move them to further reading though. Aza24 (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Variety of academic sources from different regions
Is there a romanization (or other) pronunciation that could be provided in the lead?
Not Done I am unsure what you mean, the current first sentence provides the two most common names in the same format as other FAs (Zhang Heng for instance) if you're referring to IPA, that does not exist for Chinese. Aza24 (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...the papermaking process, for he originated paper... - the use of "for he" is surely outdated, 'because' or 'as' would be better
Perhaps connect the first two sentences of the Imperial court service section better, if it wouldn't be OR - they are sourced to the same place, though, so it should be easy
Not Done, I'm not really sure how I could do that, since the first part is a general statement and the second is explanation that connects with the third sentence, so if I combined them it would probably have to be the first three sentences. Aza24 (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do the emperors really need to be given their full title at every instance?
Is all of the tension about Zhang's heir really necessary? Is it possible to provide the relevant context for Cai's involvement without the whole saga?
I do think quite a bit of context is needed, but looking further the present amount may be too much, I'll work on trimming it
Done – I have trimmed some, left a bit because the background politics relate pretty closely to Cai's positions and why the emperor was going to kill him later in life.
I have made a variety of technical edits in just the one section, and I think this speaks to how much improvement the prose needs.
I see what you're talking about now. I've been able to (I think) fix this for the lead, so I will go through and try to for the other sections as well
There was a stray AD in there - CE appears most common, and though not needed after the first instance due to being CE, this should be standardized throughout the article
There are two paragraphs on the standardization of paper: the first is the more relevant, about Cai's discovery and process, but it presents the information very briefly. There also is no content about the fact there is a missing ingredient, something I can imagine there will be much scholarly coverage of. The second paragraph is really an analysis of Cai's importance in paper history, with views from only two scholars. The coverage is uneven, and this second paragraph likely belongs in a legacy or historical appraisal section.
I have moved the information you're referring to in the Global influence section for now, I'll ponder over if it needs expansion, or its own section. The views from Needham aren't disputed by any other scholars and the idea that he was the patron was less of a serious proposition from Day and McNeil and more of something they propose as a consideration Aza24 (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What version of English is being used? There appears to be a mix of American and British. Perhaps Hong Kong, Shanghai or Singapore English would be most appropriate?
Well I've been writing in American English and it looks like most of it is that way. I caught a couple stray words but at this point I think it makes more sense to keep it in American rather than changing everything. Aza24 (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a clarify tag to some specific verb uses in the later life section
@Aza24: If you'd be happy to address these points, I can put this on hold. I am a little surprised that there is such little coverage of Cai, and that most of it is actually discussion of other significant people whose lives he fleetingly entered, with the bare minimum on the papermaking process. Even with technical improvements, for want of coverage this may fail. Kingsif (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there is virtually no other information on Cai available. This is quite literally all that exists about his life. The court politics coincide and give context to the snippets of information available, although I will work to trim some of this. Aza24 (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Unfortunately I'm still waiting to get my hands on two books that I had previously returned to the library (since they were overdue!). I should be able to get them later this week and will make the appropriate changes this weekend. I kindly ask for your patience on the matter, but if you feel that need to fail for my delayed work I would completely understand. Aza24 (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif I believe I had addressed all of the issues. Looking around in Wikipedia at the article of Chinese emperors they all seem to use the title every time – although I have not received a response from the user I asked about it. I've done my best to go through looking for instances of non-American English and story telling, do let me know if I missed anything or if there's still improvements to be made. Aza24 (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: Thanks for the work, the prose looks better and at this point my concern holding this back is the lead length. It's still too long. This is really one of the criteria that focuses on the readers of Wikipedia. The length of a lead does give readers an impression of the length of an article, and what they're getting into - here, it still doesn't accurately reflect that length and should be shorter. Kingsif (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: I trimmed it down for you. Leads do not need to - and should not - include every detail and date. They introduce the subject and why it's notable in the first paragraph, and subsequent paragraphs can summarize the 'big picture'. It's now sufficient, but the style that was present throughout this article before suggests to me that perhaps you should get more experience writing Wikipedia articles before putting them through GA. Kingsif (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. The lead now reads like a boring pamphlet that I'm forced to accept for you to pass this review. Readers will almost always only read the lead, and now they are left with information that doesn't even include what he did to improve paper, how he was a eunuch (which was a significant detail that dictated what positions he was eligible for) and original research (he didn't arrive at court in 75, he is known to have been there by then). After all of this, what do you do? Insult me – unbelievable. Aza24 (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC) Thank you for the review. This was an article which I wrote the bulk of a while ago, I am confident that my writing has improved since then and I adamantly disagree that I need “more experience”. I will likely tweak the lead around in the future when/if this goes to FAC, and will be sure to discuss with reviewers there about the appropriate size. Aza24 (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's up to you. I crossed out my comments above, which I thought was clear that I had rescinded them, but if not I do apologize – I've been having a very rough week if that's any explanation. I have no idea where your idea of me being an "ass bout Wikipedia MOS" is coming from. We both interpret the MOS different and that is completely fine as it is a guideline, not a rule. Aza24 (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]