Talk:Causeway Bay Books disappearances/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 14:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I am starting a Good article review for Causeway Bay Books disappearances. Shearonink (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria seems well-written, at first impression I can find no obvious issues.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * I did a spot-check of several of the Chinese-lkanguage references using Google Translate - so far as I can tell the references are all in order with the exception of Reference #51 - it is basically a bare URL. Please fill it out more completely.
 * Thanks for fixing that ref. Shearonink (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * I did a spot-check of several of the Chinese-lkanguage references using Google Translate - so far as I can tell the references are all in order with the exception of Reference #51 - it is basically a bare URL. Please fill it out more completely.
 * Thanks for fixing that ref. Shearonink (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * the article's authors are to be commended for keeping the tone dispassionate
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * pending my checking of the references. Shearonink (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So far as I can tell all the Chinese-language references check out. Review is now On hold pending Reference #51 being filled out more completely.   Shearonink (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Refence #51 has been filled-out, congratulations to all the editors - it's a Good article. Shearonink (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * pending my checking of the references. Shearonink (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So far as I can tell all the Chinese-language references check out. Review is now On hold pending Reference #51 being filled out more completely.   Shearonink (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Refence #51 has been filled-out, congratulations to all the editors - it's a Good article. Shearonink (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Refence #51 has been filled-out, congratulations to all the editors - it's a Good article. Shearonink (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)