Talk:Chai Trong-rong/GA1

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

Protonk Comments

 * Image: Checks out.


 * Style: Some comments:
 * The lead is proper per the MOS with the exception that it does not mention the "chairmanship campaigns"
 * I'm not sure what this sentence means: "He is a pro-democracy advocate for the plebiscite and founded the Association for a Plebiscite in 1990.". the wikilink goes to referenda generally and not to a specific proposal to establish one in Taiwan (which is what it would seem to be from the sentence structure.  Should Association for a Plebiscite be a red link?  At least in this case, both the lead and the section below mentioning this subject need to have more clarity for the general reader.
 * In an article this short, follow WP:MOSLINK diligently. Once linked in an article (for example, Taiwan), do not link it again.  Similarly, do not wikilink dictionary definitions too much.
 * Some sentence formulations are curious:
 * " Chai returned to Taiwan to "attend a funeral" in June 1990. " Why are there quotations marks around 'attend a funeral'?  Did he actually attend a funeral?  Did he lie about it in order to return to Taiwan?  It seems possible to me from the previous section that he claimed to be visiting in order to skirt a ban on his return.  If this is the case, it should be stated, rather than alluded to.
 * "After the World War II..." fragments like this abound. This is ok.  for a non-native speaker of English, it may be difficult to generate the distinction between "the Second World War" and "World War II" (which has no definite article preceding it).  This may also be a typo.
 * "In 1986, Chai became a professor at the City University of New York" This is a quibble, but this sentence is in his "political career" section. It doesn't strictly belong there unless someone has claims that he used or intended to use the professorship as a political goal or tool, which seems unlikely.
 * Overall the style appears to be one of taut sentences and scrupulous citations. The author appears unwilling to venture an opinion and unwilling to present extraneous facts that aren't sourced.  On balance, this is a good thing.  I also realize that this is a consequence of the sourcing.  Almost all of the sources appear to be newspapers or professional material.  There is not a sprawling biography to pull facts from.  This is then not a problem with the editors but a limitation created by the subject.  given this limitation, the article has come out fairly well.


 * Sources I cannot comment on all the sources, only the ones in english (from the expatriate newspaper). I can, however, note that the articles I saw verified the text.


 * POV there might be some lurking POV problems here but I really doubt it.


 * Treatment of the subject
 * The reader needs some context for some of the claims made about the subject. Just like I noted with the plebiscite issue above, this article should be written as though the reader does not know of the issues at hand.  Wikilinks take care of most of this--I can click on many of them and gather information.  But some of the wikilinks are unhelpful for this purpose.  "In 2005, he urged the Ministry of Education to get rid of contexts of "aboveboard Chinese"  from the back cover of elementary school workbooks." provides only a link to the ministry of education and elementary schooling in general.  I have no indication of what "aboveboard chinese" is and I can garner none from the wikilinks.  Perhaps a better link would be Education_in_Taiwan?  But even beyond that, it would GREATLY improve the article to have a 1-2 sentence explanation for the various acts and policies cited in the article that are not fully explained by wikilinks.
 * Fully 1/3 of the article is devoted to the "Chairmanship campaigns" but little is asserted as to their overall importance in understanding the subject. to me it seems like he lost a party election twice.  I'm not saying this isn't important (as we have articles on american politicians who have never won national office but continue to lose party elections) just that it may not be so important as to devote 1/3 of the article to it.  Part of the reason for this appears to be sourcing.  Recent events generate easier to access sources and events of national prominence generate more attention than regional events.

I'm going to place this article on hold (I know it has been holding a long time awaiting review). Here are some of the key issues that need to be resolved before I can promote it:
 * Wikilinks need to link to accurate, appropriate targets and need to occur in the article only as the MOS dictates.
 * The subject needs to be depicted in a manner that is not obscured for readers unfamiliar with Taiwanese politics. Context should be provided if it helps the clarity of the article or if an accurate explanation is not included in a linked article.
 * Minor stylistic issues need to be cleared up.
 * Consider reducing the size of the last section.

Otherwise the article is very good and I'm happy to have been able to review it. Protonk (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done -- Jerrch 19:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about keeping this on hold for so long. Looking at the changes to the article I still feel that the article has POV issues (the changed text for association for a plebiscite) and context issues for an international audience. I'm going to list it as awaiting a second opinion and I will defer to their opinion as to the article's future. Protonk (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinion Comments
I took a run through the article, and here are the issues I came up with:


 * The paragraphs in the lede are too short. I am not advocating expanding the lede (although you can if you want), simply condensing these sentences into one or possibly two paragraphs.
 * The "Entry into politics" section and "Chairmanship campaigns" subsection also have too many short paragraphs. Please attempt to combine some of these.
 * The first paragraph of the "Entry into politics" section does not have a reference.
 * In "Early life and education", you say "In 1986, Chai became a professor at the City University of New York." What was he a professor of?
 * The "Entry into politics" section could be expanded, as it is currently very short. Perhaps with short (one sentence) descriptions of what the two organizations he founded stood for or do?
 * In "Chairmanship campaigns" you say "Chai only got 36%." Perhaps reword to "Chai received 36%" to make the sentence more encyclopedic and less POV.

This article seems to do a fairly good job of covering Chai's life. The above comments should be fairly easy to address, and when the edits have been completed, this article should be good to go for GA. If you have questions, I can be contacted here (I have this page watchlisted) or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As my most pressing concerns for GA have been addressed, I am passing this article to GA status. I would recommend that the rest of my comments above be implemented at some point.  If you are planning on taking this article to FA, the entire article could use some expansion, and short paragraphs must be combined, or else the whole thing looks choppy. Dana boomer (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I will continue to fix the problems that you mentioned.-- Jerrch 18:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)