Talk:Chongqing model/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 20:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Will review. This is interesting stuff. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * review
 * two disambiguations needed -Wang Yang and Hukou ✅
 * captions: those that are a complete sentence require a period. Those that don't end in a complete sentence should not end in a period. Two of the captions need fixing. ✅
 * "a more or less comprehensive roadmap " - vague. Can you use different wording?
 * link as many Chinese names and terms as possible at first mention. e.g. I linked Liaoning province as an example ✅
 * in general, names of people should be wiki linked at first mention (if there is an article to link to) and can be linked again further down, as to many these names are confusing.
 * "the initiative was given approval by central authorities" - do the central authorities have a name? ✅
 * "The campaign was overseen by Wang Lijun, whom Bo had worked with previously in Liaoning province." - it's mentioned below that he is police chief - should it be mentioned here because I didn't connect the names. ✅
 * "only 27% held urban hukous as of 2007" - is an "urban hukous" some kind of certification or license? ✅
 * "3 million rural residents" - generally numbers under 10 should be written out - e.g. three millon ✅
 * "One student quoted in the Washington Post embraced the ethos of the campaign, saying, "When I sing red songs, I find a kind of spirit I never felt when singing modern songs" - should be The Washington Post (a few sentences later the Washington Post is mentioned again but the correct name, linking and italics should occur at first mention. ✅
 * "Daily Telegraph should be The Daily Telegraph ✅
 * Cultural Revolution - should be wlinked ✅
 * I wlinked GDP - please look for instances to wlink to help the reader
 * business association told the Daily Telegraph - should be The Daily Telegraph - please check for all instances of newspaper names. Some ust "The", others don't. ✅
 * "began an effort to discredit the former party secretary." - would it be simpler and clearer to say "discredit him"? ✅
 * "The Wall Street Journal should be The Wall Street Journal - in the rest of the article it seems to be correctly named. ✅


 * This is an excellent article, well written and sourced. With these nitpicks address, it will pass. I have made some edits Feel free to revert those that you don't agree with.

MathewTownsend (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I'll start addressing these, and will let you know when done (shouldn't take more than a couple days, but currently on quasi-vacation).  Homunculus (duihua) 16:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost done. I misread one of your suggestions that names of individuals can be linked more than once to help the reader.  Will go back tomorrow or late today and implement that as suggested, alone with the few others I didn't address today. Homunculus (duihua) 17:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I've addressed the remaining issues, though not sure how successful my attempt was on the third bullet. Let me know your thoughts. Homunculus (duihua) 06:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm satisfied. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
 * b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
 * b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * c. no original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * no edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass!
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * no edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass!