Talk:China/GA3
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 15:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey FutureTrillionaire et al., I'll be glad to take this review. I realize it's only just been nominated, but a project like this deserves to cut ahead in the line.
I anticipate this being a lengthier than usual review process due to the article's scope and importance, which I'll approach in three steps.
- Standard close read for grammar, source issues, neutrality, etc. I hope to complete this in the next 1-3 days.
- Comparison to other encyclopedia entries on China to ensure that no main aspect is omitted or significantly overweighted
- At least one additional week's hold to solicit input from WikiProject China and GAN regulars (though per WP:GAN/I, the final decision on whether the article meets the criteria will be my own).
Thanks to everyone who's worked to bring it to this point; I'm looking forward to reviewing it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for deciding to review this article! I agree that will likely involve a lot of work, so take all the time you need.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, here are some initial comments. Given the size of this one, I'll try to divide my comments by subsection. So far it looks good. I know you're likely inheriting a lot of text here from previous editors, so I'll try to be very rigorous in my checking. If comments appear to you too picky, feel free to say so and I'll look again if it's really needed for the GA criteria or not. I'm also making a few changes as I go; please feel free to revert any with which you disagree. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Collapsing resolved comments for readability
|
---|
Since my comments are getting a bit lengthy, I'll take a break here and switch the status to "Hold" to give you a chance to respond to some of the above. Thanks again to everybody working on this one. Despite my notes above, my overall impression is that this is strong stuff and on track to become a GA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
|
Continued review by Khazar2
|
---|
Arbitrary section break 1edit
Okay, all your revisions above look good to me, so consider that all resolved
More soon, Khazar2 (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break 2edit
Didn't quite reach the end, but getting close! Hope to finish this initial set of comments off tonight. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Okay, that's everything from my initial pass. Thanks for your diligence in working through my comments, which I know range from the important to the picky.
Overall, this looks good, and appears to be quickly approaching promotion. I'm satisfied with the prose from top to bottom, I see no evidence of copyvio issues in spotchecks, and the article appears MOS-compliant, at least in the aspects necessary for GA, save perhaps for a WP:WTW issue noted above. Neutrality and stability appear good, and all images are appropriately captioned.
Tomorrow I'll go over the sources one more time and make sure I didn't miss anything that doesn't qualify as an RS, needs page numbers, etc. I'll also glance at other encyclopedias for comparison and review the image licensing. Once you've had a chance to address my comments, I'll post inviting further comment from WikiProject Countries, WikiProject China, and WT:GAN. I don't anticipate any major problems arising, though. This was a pleasure to read and I look forward to seeing it as a GA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi FT, with apologies, I've decided to retire from Wikipedia. I would suggest posting at WT:GAN to request a new reviewer to finish this out. I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but I think having a second set of eyes may help this one in the long run anyway. Thanks again for your work on this--it's a really impressive accomplishment. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Editor willing to take this article on
editHello! I am willing to take this article on. I'm very sad to hear of your retirement, Khazar2! I sincerely hope you reconsider, perhaps de-admin yourself (to reduce pressure), and go back to editing / reviewing on a more enjoyable and occasional basis. At any rate you are a mainstay of the GA process and I wish you well in your personal life and private endeavours!
FutureTrillionaire, thanks for your edits to this article. If you any other reviewers have no objections, I'll take this review. I've reviewed quite a few articles, and several ones of significant length (most notably Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). As Khazar has stated, an article of this size and breadth will require some time to finalise, and as suggested as this review continues I will solicit opinions from the relevant task forces above.
I will spend a day or two familiarising myself with this article and then provide an assessment. I would first like to note that this article appears in wonderful shape and to thank you and other editors for bringing it to this level. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, LT, for those kind words and for stepping up to take this one on! I actually never applied for adminship, but I think you're right on in spirit--if I ever do return, I'll stop watching pages like WT:GAN (perhaps even delete my watchlist entirely) and focus on writing one article at a time. Anyway, I've been an admirer of your work as well, and I hope you keep it up! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Review by LT910001
editWith no objections, I will continue this review. As (now) primary reviewer, in order to pass the article I will be running through the article again. Having done this once and jotted down some notes, there don't appear to be any major problems. In conducting my review, I will: --LT910001 (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
- If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
- Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.
Assessment
editRate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Minor concerns only | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Yes | |
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. | Addressed | |
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). | Resolved | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
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. | ||
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. | Issues resolved | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Very, and high quality too. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Commentary
editI'll be recording commentary here in addition to a quick read-through (currently up to the 'Health' section of 'Demographics':--LT910001 (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Use of RMB and USD
|
---|
|
Excellent. I've boxed resolved issues and updated my assessment. When I have uploaded the full list of books without page numbers, there will be no additional segments to my review. As it stands, the only issue that needs to be resolved is the lack of page numbers for these books. Minor readability concerns exist as noted, but these will not impact on GA promotion. --LT910001 (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Images
editImages
|
---|
This article is abutted by many high-quality images which enhance the quality of the text. Two images I will comment on: Additional comments:
|
Sources
editUnsourced statements
|
---|
As I spend the next day familiarising myself, I will note that there appear to be some missing sources for the following statements:
Please do not feel rushed in sourcing these statements. Having completed a more thorough sweep I must say again how impressed I am with the breadth of this article. --LT910001 (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
|
For the final part of this review, I have checked randomly-selected segments of text for close paraphrasing, and reviewed numerous sources to ensure parity with in text. I found no such examples.
Page numbers
|
---|
With regard to verifiability, in some instances entire books are cited without a page number.
I have examined all the entries. |
If this article is going to be nominated for FA status, the citations will need to be recorded in full and in a standard style. However this isn't a component of the GA review. Some inconsistencies currently that I'll note in anticipation of a future FA nomination include:
- Newspaper articles without publication dates
- Newspaper articles without authors provided (may be your chosen citation style)
- Books without page numbers, publication companies, ISBNs and/or place of publication
- Inconsistent formatting when reporting dates - some are bracketed, others do not follow dd mm yy or mm dd yy
- Missing access dates for online resources
- One or two articles are provided without a title
Read-through
edit
|
External commentary
editI have invited comments from the relevant Wikiprojects (WP:CHINA). I would ask any commentators to please record their comments in this section. Per WP:GARC I retain the final decision regarding nomination, but I would highly value input from the relevant Wikiprojects, specifically regarding whether this article is accurate and suitable broad and has any glaring ommisions. I wish you all well, --LT910001 (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Conclusion
editThis article meets or exceeds all of the GA criteria, and I commend the authors on a very well-reading and well-sourced article. I am promoting it to GA status and have made all the relevant changes. Well done, and I wish you well on your future FA nomination! --LT910001 (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Awesome. Thank you!--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)