Talk:Weiquan movement/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 23:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
For a non-native speaker such as myself, this reads well enough.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Problems exist: 1) two disambigs needed (run the disambig tool from the toolbox to the top right of this review section) 2)four dead links (run the respective tool) 3) the article could use more blue links, and they are not always where they should be; for example the link to the Chinese constitution in the first para of the first section is used on the second, not first mention of the word constitution (both in the context of the Chinese one). This para should also link the court system, an important concept. On a more prominent note, Falun Gong is linked only on its third mention. The first mention of "legal authority in China" should probably link to the judiciary in China. This is just a sample of how underlined this article is (WP:BTW).
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
While this is not necessary, it would be nice to see links to all references, some are not linked to their respective journal article urls or Google Book entries.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Insufficient reference density: not only there are numerous unreferenced sentences, but there are entire unreferenced paragraphs (for example, the second para in the very first section (Background) cites no references. At least one entire section (Women's rights) is unreferenced. Online links mentioned previously would help; some references look shaky without a link for verification (in particular: "Suqian Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province Criminal Verdict [in case of Guo Quan]").

C. No original research:
This cannot be checked till the reference density is improved.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Perhaps I've missed it, and it is a minor issue, but the article could use a section on the etymology of "Weiquan". Who came up with that name, is it a given name, why isn't the name simply translated into English, etc. I couldn't find a good explanation in the article for "why is this movement called the "Weiquan movement" instead of a "[insert random word here] movement".

B. Focused:
Seems fine.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
The article makes many claims which are not referenced and which are critical of the Chinese government (example, not the only one: "Although freedom of speech is enshrined in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, Chinese authorities enforce restrictions on political and religious expression"). While my knowledge of the field suggests those claims are justified, such criticism needs to be referenced. As things stand, this article makes a lot of unreferenced criticism, and hence is not possible to judge the neutrality.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No edit wars.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
See below.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
No images at all, where some could be found. Don't any of the activists and lawyers mentioned here have images on Wikipedia? Are there no images that could be uploaded under fair use? If all fails, an image or two of the Chinese courthouses or such should be available.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Currently this is a fail, but of course interested editors are expected to address the issues raised above and improve the article. Please ping me on my talk page if there are any questions, or when the article is ready for a re-review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. No response for almost two weeks... I will fail it at three weeks if there is no response. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I've started making changes per your review, but am not yet finished. Should be done in a matter of days. Homunculus (duihua) 14:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All's fine then. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not totally done yet, but I have added images, resolved the disambiguous and dead links, added more sources, and added and corrected the location of blue links. I still need to add more sources and fix up a couple things, but also wanted to press you on your suggestion regarding the entomology of "Weiquan." I've re-read some of the more comprehensive sources on the subject, but could not find a discussion of the origins of the term itself. Weiquan translates literally as "safeguard/defend rights." In english, the term seems awfully broad (see the talk page for the article for evidence—people unfamiliar with the movement speculated that this term could just refer to human rights activists and dissidents), but in this context, it takes on a distinct meaning as referring to a group of lawyers and legal experts engaged in rights activism through (mostly) legal channels. Since the english translation is not very illuminating, Western observers have just adopted the Chinese term. But this is my personal interpretation; I cannot find it supported in the sources. Is it alright to omit it, unless and until I can find it from a published source? Homunculus (duihua) 05:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, per WP:NOR, we have to omit such an explanation from the article. If it is not there, well, we cannot demand for it to be included, and I'll strike it down from the comprehensiveness requirement. You may want to create a separate section on the talk page with the above explanation, so it is easier to find by others in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am still actively working on this, but will need a couple more days. Apologies again. I'll ping you when I'm done.

Alright, after a considerable delay, I think the page is more or less ready. I've resolved the dead and disambiguous links, added many more references and fixed redundant references, added external links to all the references, added and corrected the placement of links, and added images. If there are outstanding issues, please let me know and I'll seek to resolve them in a more timely manner. Homunculus (duihua) 04:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, thank you for bringing this interesting issue to English Wikipedia. I'll pass the article now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]