Talk:China/GA3

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

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.


 * 1) Standard close read for grammar, source issues, neutrality, etc. I hope to complete this in the next 1-3 days.
 * 2) Comparison to other encyclopedia entries on China to ensure that no main aspect is omitted or significantly overweighted
 * 3) 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)


 * Lead
 * Can a better copy of the Sino-British Joint Declaration be linked to than WikiSource? I presume we can't use wikisource as a reliable source, since it's a wiki. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed it, not sure why that was there. It can't really be used as a source because it only pertains to Hong Kong and not Macau.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "dependent on whether the surface areas of various inland bodies of water such as the Great Lakes are included in the total area of a country" -- how about something just like "depending on the method of measurement"? This seems a little granular for the lead section. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't a GA requirement but the lead section is extremely dense in its linking. I'd suggest delinking some of the less important links here (stuff like List of Longest Rivers) so that the important links aren't buried. These are appropriate to link later in the article, of course. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed several links.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "has been characterized as a potential superpower by a number of academics,[20] military analysts,[21][22] and public policy and economics analysts.[23][24]" -- seems to be a slight lead/body balances issue here-- oddly the lead's discussion of who feels this way is a bit more granular than the body's, which only generalizes rather than giving this breakdown of who says it. How about just saying in the lead "has been characterized as a potential superpower by numerous commentators" or some such? These examples could then be moved to the body.m-- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Infobox
 * It's not a GA issue, but having two citations for Shanghai being the largest city seems like overkill. (Extra citations aren't a huge deal, but they do create clutter and slow the page's load time as additional templates.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The "55 minorities" section appears to need citation, both for the total number of minorities and their respective percentages -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * " - 	Water (%)	2.8" -- appears to need citation -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's actually supposed to be 0.28 not 2.8, assuming that the figure was calculated using data from the CIA WFB. I've made the correction and added a footnote/source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 2012 estimate	1,353,821,000[4][8] -- the first citation appears to be from a 2011 page, and the second from a 2013. I'm confused about the "2012 estimate" part, but I may be misreading -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The figure was not found in either source, so I removed the figure and the sources, and added the 2012 data from the World Bank.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The population density and ranking appears to me to need citation, but I note that on Japan an FA this is also uncited. Is there a standard approach for these infoboxes and I'm being too strict? -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The population density figures for Belarus and India (both FAs) are also uncited. They may have came from this article: List of sovereign states and dependent territories by population density. I'm guessing these figures are calculated by Wikipedians rather than directly coming from a source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's fair--it's probably a question of simple division (people/area). But what makes this confusing is that we have two population figures cited, and variable figures for land, and it's not clear which stats the population density is pegged to. Is it possible to find this stat at CIA World Factbook or somewhere? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * List of sovereign states and dependent territories by population density is wikilinked from the infobox entry, and gives a slightly different figure and ranking. I don't expect you to reconcile all China entries in Wikipedia, of course, but that, too, makes me think we need a source here for clarity for both the ranking and the stat itself to clarify our source. Maybe WikiProject Countries could give some guidance? If there's a clear consensus there, I'll defer to their judgement. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The best source I can find is the 2011 World Bank data for pop density. I've changed the figure in the infobox and added the source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's perfect, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A downloadable .txt transcript of an ICANN meeting is an odd source to include, and may be borderline on a reliable source. But this is a pretty basic claim, so I don't see it as a problem. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Footnotes
 * "Portuguese (Macau only), English (Hong Kong only)" -- this should probably have a period for consistency with the others. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "The source for the data can be obtained from here." -- I'm not sure this needs a special footnote--I'd suggest just making this a standard citation. The embedded link should be changed in any case. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Whether or not Confucianism can be classified as a religion is disputed." -- this seems like a statement that needs citation. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Etymology
 * "尚書•梓材》:「皇天既付中國民越厥疆土于先王」 Roughly translated as "The Heavens awarded the lands and peoples of Zhōngguó to our ancestors".-- this quotation appears to need citation. The work is named, but it would help to have an indicator of page or section, edition, etc.
 * I removed the translation because I couldn't find a source for it. I did however, found the Chinese text on wikiosurce.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Endymion, Wilkinson" -- this unusual name appears to be backwards here.(cf., ) -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * History
 * "A cave in Zhoukoudian (near present-day Beijing) exhibits hominid fossils dated at between 300,000 and 780,000 BCE." -- three citations for this seems excessive--are they all needed? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Strange. The first and third source don't address the age of the fossil. I've removed those two sources. I also changed 300k to 680k to reflect what is said in the remaining source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "but it is impossible to verify that these remains are of the Xia without written records from the period." -- since this could be read as argumentation, it would be better for this to have a citation--is one easily available?-- Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a source to support that so I removed it. I replaced it with a sourced statement concerning whether or not the sites are remnants of the Xia or of another culture.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Early dynastic rule -- it's not an issue for GA, but if you advance this to FA, I'd imagine someone will call for a citation for the second half of this paragraph-- Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Song Dynasty also saw a flourishing of philosophy and the arts, as landscape art and portrait painting were brought to new levels of maturity and complexity," -- close enough to interpretation/opinion to need a source-- Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Source added.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "reinvigorated Confucianism with new commentary" -- again, close enough to opinion to probably need a source-- Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've revised the statement to sound less opinionated and added a source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Feldman and Zhao (currently refs 79 and 81) could both use page numbers (or a range of page numbers). This doesn't seem necessary for GA, though, since none of this falls under statements that would need citation per 2b.-- Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Added page number for Feldman. I couldn't find the info in the other two sources, so I removed them. One source is probably good enough.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ditto for Young and Carroll (currently refs 92 and 93).-- Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find the info in those sources, so I replaced them with a web source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest cutting the reference ""Tiananmen Square massacre heads long list of taboo subjects". Reporters Without Borders. 4 June 2013. Retrieved 10 July 2013." It doesn't give a good overview of the events and their aftermath, and as a political pressure group, is borderline as a reliable source. So much has been written on the Tiananmen Square events that I think a better source could easily be found here if a third source is indeed needed.-- Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've marked a dead link, but that's not an issue for GA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed all the dead link issues.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "The city of Shanghai has become a symbol of China's rapid economic expansion since the 1990s." Needs citation. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Claim removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

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)
 * Thanks for your responses so far; your revisions look excellent--I hope to work on this more later today and post a review for another third of the article or so. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've been a bit delayed; I may not be able to continue significantly until Monday. Looking forward to reading the rest! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool, no problem. :) --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1
Okay, all your revisions above look good to me, so consider that all resolved save one. The only point that may need further discussion is the population density--let me know your thoughts. Hope to get through 3-5 more sections today. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Continuing...


 * Geography
 * "None of these figures include the 1,000 square kilometres (386.1 sq mi) of territory ceded to China by Tajikistan following the ratification of a Sino-Tajik border agreement in January 2011.[106]" -- the CIA factbook entry is from Nov 2013-- are we sure it doesn't include this territory? If it doesn't, why not? Perhaps an explanatory footnote on the dispute would be helpful.
 * The CIA WFB page in 2010 (before the territorial gain) has the same figure as it has today, so they haven't updated the data. Why? I don't know. Maybe the territory is too small to make a significant difference. To be honest, I'm not sure if the sentence regarding the land gain from Tajikistan is even worth mentioning.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Cutting it would resolve the issue if you're up for that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "a small section of Russian Altai" -- is Russian Altai a nation? Its article makes it sound like a subdivision of Russia--it's a bit confusing to have it in this list.
 * I've edited the sentence so that it only lists countries and not regions of countries.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "and the frontier between areas under their respective control is closest near the islands of Kinmen and Matsu, off the Fujian coast, but otherwise run through the Taiwan Strait" -- this sentence is a bit confusing. What's the subject for the verb "run"--are we still talking about the frontier here? Is there another way to word this?
 * Removed that sentence. General info about territorial disputes is already in the territorial disputes section.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The Senkaku Islands dispute seems worth one sentence in the geography section, given that other island disputes are mentioned. But this isn't required for GA (it's not anywhere close to a "main aspect"). Saw this under "politics".
 * "To the west, major mountain ranges, most notably the Himalayas, and high plateaus feature among the more arid landscapes of the north, such as the Taklamakan and the Gobi Desert." -- Am I reading this right that it's "To the west major mountain ranges
 * I agree with your edit in which you added "sit" after "To the west". I've also broken up the sentence for clarity.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * " The world's highest point, Mount Everest (8,848m), lies on the Sino-Nepalese border. The country's lowest point, and the world's fourth-lowest, is the dried lake bed of Ayding Lake (−154m) in the Turpan Depression." -- both these sentences need inline citation for the statistics (though they shouldn't be hard to find)
 * Done --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * " the country has over 360 nature reserves." -- probably needs citation as a numeric figure/statistic
 * Done - Source added. Had to adjust the figure, the number of nature reserves is way more than 360.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "along with over 120 bird species" -- needs citation
 * Done --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "support as many as 146,000 species of flora" -- needs citation
 * Done --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Tropical and seasonal rainforests, though confined to Yunnan and Hainan Island, contain a quarter of all the animal and plant species found in China" -- I'm not sure the source supports this statement. Am I just overlooking it?
 * Source replaced. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be better to directly link http://tropicalconservationscience.mongabay.com/content/v1/08-03-03-Hua.htm as the source than the advocacy group reproducing it (Mongabay).
 * Can you clarify which citation should be replaced with that link? There are 4 citations using Mongabay. Or are you saying all the Mongabay sources should placed?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Darn, I should have left a better note. Now I'm confused looking at what I wrote. I'm signing off for the night now but will try to get to this tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * " is not known with precision, but probably exceeds 10,000." --what's the source for this figure? It sounds like the next source gives a much more conservative number.
 * After doing a quick research, I've found a number of sources that support the 10,000 figure. I'm not sure why the 1996 Teng source gives a much lower figure. Maybe it's outdated? Anyways, I've removed the second, smaller figure and added a source for the first.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ideally, "S.C. Teng, Fungi of China. Ithaca, New York; Mycotaxon Publishing, 586 pp. (1996)" should include a page number where the 24,000 figure can be found. But I don't know how this book is structured--maybe it's really obvious.
 * Source removed, see above comment.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Same as above for Zhuang 2001 and Zhuang 2005 (currently refs 123 and 124)
 * I think they page number was already cited, albeit weirdly: "485 pp." and "430 pp.". I've now changed them to "p. 485" and "p. 430.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that might the total number of pages in the book. This website gives the complete entry for the first as: "Higher Fungi of Tropical China, edited by Wen-Ying Zhuang. Mycotaxon, Ltd. 2001. Cloth bound, 485 pp., 26 x 18.5 cm. US$50.00 plus postage. (Please order direct from Wen-Ying Zhuang, P.O. Box 2714, Beijing 100080, China, email: zhuangwy@sun.im.ac.cn). ISBN 0-930845-13-7." So we still will need page numbers for these stats, unfortunately. I assume this would not be an easy book to find. Is it possible to ask the editor who originally added this text, maybe? -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the Zhuang 2001 source with a 2007 journal article. I've removed the sentence about the number of fungi species in northern China and the source it used (Zhuang 2005) because regional statistics is probably unnecessary.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "The issue of fungal conservation, long overlooked in China, was first addressed in the early 2010s, with pioneer publications evaluating the conservation status of individual species" -- this sentence seems a bit argumentative to have a weak source (an individual paper in Mycosystema). And having a few articles published on the conservation status of individual species of fungi doesn't seem to merit a mention in the country-level article; for comparison, we don't have anything about panda conservation efforts, though this is a topic of perpetual worldwide interest. I'd suggest either trimming for neutrality (maybe just cut "long overlooked in China" and "pioneer"), which is probably needed for GA, or just cutting the sentence, which isn't necessary for GA but would be a good idea.
 * Agree, sentence removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Environmental campaigners have warned that water pollution is becoming a severe threat to Chinese society" -- I'm not sure the given source is enough to support this general a statement. The story only has one paragraph that seems directly related:
 * "“Water pollution is already a problem,” one blogger said, referencing the nation’s most recent headline-grabbing environmental movement to fight water pollution, “Now pigs? This is getting ridiculous,” he said."
 * Am I misreading? It seems like it would be better to have a more direct source than a news story mentioning a blogger mentioning that other people were concerned about the issue. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sentence removed/reworded.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't an action point, but I just wanted to compliment you on how well balanced this article is so far. The environmental section that I just read is excellent for its neutrality but most of all for its succinctness. It's terrific that you and the other editors here have kept this article at 64kb of readable prose despite the scope of the topic. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Politics
 * "with heavy restrictions remaining in many areas, most notably on the Internet, the press, freedom of assembly, reproductive rights, social organizations" -- the reference for this points us to a whole book (Hasmath and Hsu) instead of giving page numbers, which makes this claim hard to verify. Can page numbers be added?
 * Unnecessary source removed. The subsequent source from Freedom House supports the statement quite well.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "with heavy restrictions remaining in many areas" -- regarding the same sentence, I'm not sure I like the word "remaining", which assumes that states will inevitably progress to free expression. maybe just cut it and say "restrictions in many areas"?
 * Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "although these experiments have been marred by corruption." -- this seems a bit POV, and is also unsourced.
 * Sentence removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * " Nonetheless, the level of public support for the government and its management of the nation is among the highest in the world" -- I'm wary of generalizing so broadly from this survey. The PEW survey was done immediately before the Olympics, and in 2002 the level of satisfaction was only in the high 40s. It seems possible that another five years have changed this number again. Do we have a source that says that China has consistently been one of the most satisfied countries in the world?
 * I've updated the figure using the results from a newer study from 2011, which found that 80–95% were satisfied. I removed the part about China being the most stratified in the world.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ideally, the Keith citation would have page numbers (currently reference 165), but I don't think this is necessary for GA (not a claim that falls under 2b). -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Page numbers added.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

More soon, Khazar2 (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "China is additionally involved in multilateral disputes over the ownership of several small islands in the East and South China Seas" -- might be worth naming and linking Senkaku Islands dispute and Scarborough Shoal standoff here, but not necessary for GA.
 * Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ref 190 (Chen Guidi and Wu Chuntao) and 191 (Guy Sorman) both appear to need page numbers or page ranges to make these citations verifiable.
 * Added page numbers for Sorman. I removed the Chen Guidi source because a Google Book search didn't find much info about the Chinese constitution in the book.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Although the Chinese government is increasingly tolerant of NGOs that offer practical, efficient solutions to social problems, such "third sector" activity remains heavily regulated" -- this seems like it could be rephrased per WP:REALTIME in case the policies start to move the other way. Could it be said something like "in the early 2000s, the Chinese government was increasingly tolerant of NGOs that offer practical, efficient solutions to social problems, such "third sector" activity remained heavily regulated"?
 * Done. But I've changed the sentece to say "during the 2000s and early 2010s...". The source, written in 2012, doesn't make it entirely clear when the government started becoming more tolerant. It says "for around 10 years", which I assume to mean from around 2002 to 2012.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

 * Military
 * "have claimed that China does not report its real level of military " - probably better to say something like "stated" or "argued" that doesn't carry a connotation of skepticism, per WP:WTW
 * Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "China has furthermore established a network of foreign military relationships that has been compared to a string of pearls" -- the "string of pearls" bit needs a little more elucidation if it's going to stay in, I think; I didn't understand the metaphor until I clicked through the wikilink. Maybe something like "has furthermore established a network of bases and foreign military relationships along critical sea lanes, referred to in a US Defense Department report as a 'string of pearls' strategy". -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed it to "China has furthermore established a network of foreign military relationships along critical sea lanes".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Economy
 * An editor changed the lead without edit summary to now read "Since the introduction of economic reforms in 1978, China has become one of the world's fastest-growing major economies" instead of the fastest. I haven't followed up, but the disparity this creates between the lead section and this section (one of the fastest vs. the fastest) should be reconciled. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I believe I did leave an edit summary: (you either need "the fastest growing major economy" or "one of the fastest growing major economies"). Also, I would point out that it previously said "one of the world's fastest growing major economy", which is grammatically incorrect. AmericanLemming (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, I was talking about the one who didn't. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "One of the world's fastest-growing major economies" is probably more accurate. I've changed the info in the Economy section and added sources. I've also removed the hundredfold growth claim because it was not supported by the source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me what http://www.abigmission.com/ is (ref 272) but it seems unlikely to be a reliable source. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Source replaced with RS, had to change the data as well.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Science and technology
 * "China is furthermore the world's largest investor in renewable energy technology.[138]" A repetition from earlier in the article; this second mention can probably just be cut. Not necessary for GA, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Infrastructure
 * As a broad note on this section, I don't think this is necessary for GA, but for FA you might consider adding slightly more historical context on these topics. When was the telephone introduced to China, when was the first railroad laid, etc. (The "health" and "sports" sections already do a good job of this, in contrast.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Demographics
 * "However, it also found that China's sex ratio is more balanced than it was first taken into account in the census in 1953" -- I'm not sure I quite understand the "than it was first taken into account". Should this be rewritten as something like "However, it also found that China's sex ratio is more balanced than it had been in 1953"? Or is there a distinction I'm missing? -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The PRC's fist census was conduced in 1953. I guess that's what that part was referring to. However, I agree that it's probably not necessary to mention that, so I removed it.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Beijing's Tsinghua University, widely considered one of the best universities in China." -- probably needs citation
 * Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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)


 * "more than two-thirds of self-proclaimed religious believers (or 31.09% of all sample villagers) do not or cannot clearly identify their faith...These people believe that there are supernatural powers that dominate or strongly influence the fate of human beings, and they think their fates can be changed through offering sacrifices to gods or ancestors. These beliefs and practices are often deeply rooted in traditional Chinese cultures and customs of local communities" -- not a GA issue, but per MOS:QUOTE, a quotation over 40 words should be a block quote. This is about 70. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Culture
 * "the country is also well known for its meat dishes." -- this perhaps needs a source--what do you think?
 * Statement removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "http://www.athleticscholarships.net/history-of-soccer.htm" -- I'm not sure this qualifies as a reliable source, and in any case it puts football at 2000 years ago rather than 1000 (as stated in the text)
 * Source replaced, info corrected. RS say that the sport began in the Han Dynasty.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:54, 5 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
Hello! I am willing to take this article on. I'm very sad to hear of your retirement, ! 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!

, 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
With 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.

Commentary
I'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)


 * I see that significant effort has gone into standardising the monetary amounts in this article in USD. However, per MOS#Currencies (WP:MOS), the numeric amounts reported in this article should be reported as in the country of origin. These could be replaced with the relevant amounts given as CNY or CN¥.
 * Reply: Isn't it a bit of a WP:V problem if the source provides the figure in USD, though? Generally CNN, BBC and Reuters articles report these things in USD values, and since currency values fluctuate all the time, there may be differences between today's exchanges and the values used at the time of reporting (which could be 2009 values, or 1999 values). Making conversions might even be borderline WP:OR. In my opinion, we shouldn't fix what isn't (too) broken. -- benlisquare T•C•E 02:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As well as being the MOS guideline (point 1), I have had a read through most of the other good articles about countries to verify this. GDP and PPP (including per capita) are reported in USD, which I believe facilitates comparison, but in all other aspects these articles comply with the guideline and use the national currency for reporting purposes, with the exception of Zimbabwe (which uses the USD). --LT910001 (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Benlisquare. There's not much we can do about this. Since our sources report the values in US dollars, we have to use US currency in the article. Featured articles like India and Japan also use US currency. Besides, the GA criteria doesn't require us to follow MOS:NUM, so we don't need to worry about this.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel that the MOS is quite clear on this, stating "In country-specific articles, use the currency of the country." This is stated within the MOS itself, not within a sub-guideline. For such a large country, there will certainly be no dearth of sources with yuan equivalents. Making a conversion would fall under 'routine calculations', which is not OR (WP:CALC). It feels quite strange to read such an article about such a country without using the currency of the country itself, and I feel that using the local currency reflects Wikipedia's global character. --LT910001 (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the conversion rates between USD and RMB on 9 December 2013 are not the same as the rates on 6 July 2011. How can we accurately make conversions that can be independently verified by other editors, without being factually incorrect? If a source is written on 17 February 2009, we will need to use 17 February 2009 rates, because back then, 200 million yuan wasn't the same figure in USD as it currently is today. I remember back as a kid that every time I traveled to China, I kept in my mind that the difference to the Australian Dollar was "roughly a multiplication of 8"; when I became a teenager, that figure became "roughly by 6". How can we accurately say that on a particular date, the rate was a certain number? -- benlisquare T•C•E 04:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is clearly stated in the MOS,, and there are ample sources available stating amounts in yuan, or historical exchange rates could be used. Owing to inflation even if these figures are provided in one currency they will not be comparable to the modern-day USD. On the other hand, I'm not going to stake the entire review around this, and there is no specific GA criteria covering this issue, so I will drop the issue. I understand that USD should be used in some circumstances, and I will just leave a note at the end of the review for any FA reviewers restating this issue. --LT910001 (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This comes across quite sourly. I apologise for my tone, excellent work has been put into this article, it is wonderful to read, and portrays one of the most clear representations of Chinese history and society I believe is available. My concern is improving its quality and reflecting a degree of cultural imperialism. This issue will not be involved in my GA assessment of this article. --LT910001 (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

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
This article is abutted by many high-quality images which enhance the quality of the text. Two images I will comment on: Additional comments:
 * This image lacks a source ✅
 * This image has a copyright flag. ✅
 * I have made some minor edits so that all the captions are consistent in not having a period at the end. I have also wikilinked two captions (Shanghai and Jingshen Expressway) for readability.
 * It would be good (but is not a requirement per GA criteria) to have a photo of the current president, Xi Jinping, in the article. ✅
 * This caption is a little strange: "Beijing's Tsinghua University, widely considered one of the best universities in China[355]"
 * I've added the source for the data for the first image. I added the appropriate copyright tag for the second one. I've replaced the Hu/Bush image with an image containing the current president. I'm not sure what's strange about the Tsinhua caption. If you can word it better, go ahead.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sorry for my pithiness. I was referring to the [355] in the caption. --LT910001 (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Read-through

 * The etymology section should mention the formal name for the country (People's Republic of China, 人中华民共共和国)
 * ✅--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The meaning of this statement, in 'early dynastic rule' is unclear: "Shang (yin)."
 * ✅ "(yin)" removed. The Shang Dynasty is also known as the Yin Dynasty.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah. --LT910001 (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The description of a 'thinker' in the 'imperial china' section could surely be replaced with a more suitable word such as 'philosopher', however this is just a personal preference and would not impact on promotion
 * ✅ --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The meaning of "Other costly rebellions" in "End of Dynastic Rule" is unclear: expensive, bloody, or wide-spread?
 * ✅ Changed "costly" to "major".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Does this paragraph, in 'climate', refer to the Southern part of China, or the whole country? "China's climate is mainly dominated by dry seasons and wet monsoons, which lead to pronounced temperature differences between winter and summer." I feel this paragraph could be moved to the top of that subsection, as it serves as an overview. Additionally as it is uncited I do not have any way of verifying whether the climate is indeed monsoonal inland or in the Northern or Eastern regions.
 * ✅ Moved up, sourced added. I think most of China is affected by the Monsoon.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The statement "that 16 of the world's most-polluted cities " in "Environmental Issues" is hard to parse without knowing how many most-polluted cities were on the list.
 * ✅ Fixed. It was 16 out of 20.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The section "Internationalization of the renminbi" has very odd formatting, and I don't feel that listing the stages of internationalisation are relevant. Suggest integrate as paragraph format, or remove.
 * ✅ Removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The statement "China Telecom and China Unicom, the country's two largest broadband providers, accounted for 20% of global broadband subscribers, whereas the world's ten largest broadband service providers combined accounted for 39% of the world's broadband customers" in "Communications" is unclear. Do the ten largest broadband service providers encompass China Telecome and Unicom?
 * ✅ Yes. To clarify and simplify things, I removed the second statistic, and changed "the country's two largest broadband providers" to "the world's two largest broadband providers."--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I feel this statement "With a population of over 1.3 billion and dwindling natural resources, China is very concerned " in "Demographics" should be attributed to the "government of China"
 * ✅ --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the specific nature of the loosening could be mentioned, as I feel this is quite a topical issue (as I understand it, two only children may have an additional child)
 * ✅ --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not feel that the 'education' subsection is suitably broad. I feel it could do with mentioning the organisation of the education system (primary, middle school, secondary school) and the technical college / university divide. Additionally I note that there is a "yuan" figure provided here which will need to be standardised.
 * ✅ --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. --LT910001 (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

External commentary
I 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
This 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)