Talk:Cultural Revolution Group/GA1

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

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Specific concerns
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * some prose awkwardnesses
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * needs a section cited
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm not convinced the poster is in the PD. It's not a photographic work, so the PD date would be 50 years after the death of the creator. No information is given on who the creator was, much less when they died.
 * I have removed the picture, but cannot find another one which appears to be suitable. Any you can suggest? MarquisCostello (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, unfortunately. I checked Commons quickly, but nothing there. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have wikilinks to articles on the Five Man Group and the Central Committee Secretariat?
 * no link for Five Man Group, but have linked the CC secretariat.MarquisCostello (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest also links for Politburo and Maoist.
 * Added link for Politburo but not for Maoist as 'Maoism' wiki article is not an appropriate link in this context. Have removed all references to Maoism instead.MarquisCostello (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What is CCP? You use it without explaining it.
 * Definition added.MarquisCostello (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "With immediate effect..." is very awkward. Suggest "The Five Man Group was dissolved immediately..."
 * Reworded along your suggested line.MarquisCostello (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "...and Peng Zhen charged with.." at first, given the context of the phrase, I thought that it meant that Peng Zhen had been entrusted with the obstruction, not that he was indicted. Suggest clarifying that he was alleged here... "accused" or "prosecuted" would work well.
 * Clarification added as per your suggestion.MarquisCostello (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "In addition, Wang Li (who had been directly involved in the Wuhan incident- see below) and other CRG..." is awkward with the parenthetical. Not sure how to fix it though, perhaps rearrange the order of the paragraphs?
 * Removed reference to Wuhan incident in the sentence and replaced with another contextual comment.MarquisCostello (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The phrase ... 'who were as interested in stability and the maintenance of the Chinese economy as in revolution." needs a citation. Citation added.MarquisCostello (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "of more significant members of the Party." is awkward, suggest perhaps "Notable" or "important"
 * Replaced significant with 'higher-ranking'. MarquisCostello (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest rewording the last sentence of "Role" to ... "The members of the CRG also had important individual roles in two of the important events of the Cultural Revolution, the Shanghai Commune and the Wuhan Incident."
 * Reworded as per your suggestion.MarquisCostello (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Shanghai section "Two of the members of the CRG were to play a significant part in the affair over the Shanghai Commune." is awkward. Suggest "Two members of the CRG played a significant part..." which eliminates the passive.
 * Reworded as per your suggestion.MarquisCostello (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Shanghai section needs a citation
 * Citation added.MarquisCostello (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wuhan section, the first sentence is awkward ... "Despite CRG orders in 1967 forbidding the use of violence, illegal arrests and the seizure of PLA arms by worker and student organisations, in July 1967 the city of Wuhan became a battleground for two large rival rebel groups..." is very convoluted. Suggest "Despite CRG's 1967 orders against violence, in July 1967 the city of Wuhan ..."
 * Trimmed down sentence.MarquisCostello (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've gone through and delinked a lot of names/terms that were overlinked. You don't need to link the same name three or four times in two or three paragraphs. The article is probably still a bit overlinked.
 * Have rmeoved some other internal links.MarquisCostello (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed the see also links. Things linked in the article do not need to be in the see also links section.
 * Duly noted.MarquisCostello (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made some changes and crossed out all the concerns i have covered.MarquisCostello (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)