Talk:Common prosperity/GA1

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

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 12:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this review. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 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:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * See spotcheck below
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig shows 64%, but that's due to long quotes, so it's fine.
 * 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:
 * 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 tagZhejiang Pilot Zoneged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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 tagZhejiang Pilot Zoneged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I will get to this review in the next week. If you have time, please consider reviewing an article at WP:GAN. I will be using this review in the WikiCup. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments

 * Random source spotcheck
 * 1) 12 good
 * 2) 24 good
 * 3) 35 good
 * 4) 47 good
 * 5) 48 good


 * Notes
 * All quotes need to be referenced with inline citations.
 * ✅. The Account 2 (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The list in the Zhejiang Pilot Zone section would be much better served in a table per MOS:EMBED.
 * ✅. The Account 2 (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * No need for tenses like "has [verb]" when talking about Xi, just use the past tense, otherwise it'll become weird in a few years. i.e. "The term has seen a large revival" --> "The term saw a large revival", "It has also been speculated" --> "It was also speculated" etc.
 * ✅. The Account 2 (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Otherwise, nice article. Putting it on hold for now. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! The Account 2 (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)