Talk:Death toll of the Nanjing Massacre/GA1

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 11:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * You need to include the name of the article, or a reworded version, in bold.✅
 * There's no linking to other articles here, such as Nanking Massacre. Sino-Japanese is a bit ambiguous, because I'm not sure what you are referring to. It could be anything lister here, so the appropriate one needs linking.✅
 * You haven't explained what the Nanking Massacre is or why it happened. I don't actually know what it is from reading the lead.✅
 * There shouldn't be any citations in the lead, as it is meant to be a summary of the entire article, of which everything should be sourced anyway.✅
 * The lead just isn't very clear or informative. It could do with being completely re-written.✅
 * China needs linking, but I'd write out it out in full (People's Republic of China) as to not confuse with the Republic of China (Taiwan).✅

''Before the "Early estimates", you could do with a brief summary titled "Background" which explains what the Nanking Massacre is and why it happened. Because I still don't know.'' - Is a whole section necessary? I added a sentence describing it in the introduction. The question of why it happened is rather complicated, so much so that even the main article on Nanking Massacre doesn't delve into the reasons. I think potentially a whole article could be written on this subject in the future.
 * It doesn't need to be massive. Maybe just one or two paragraphs about the background, because as such, nothing in the article explains by there is a death toll in the first place. I've never heard of this massacre before, so me for, reading this article felt like it wasn't complete because I had no idea why people were being massacred. —  ₳aron  21:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)✅


 * Early estimates
 * In this article the Australian journalist → In an article titled [insert title here], Australian journalist✅ - The source does not say the name of the article, so I changed the wording.
 * In this article the Australian journalist Harold Timperley was quoted as stating that 300,000 civilians had been killed. → Source? Citations should be provided at the end of every sentence.✅
 * Link Battle of Shanghai✅
 * However, Timperley's source for this number was Father Jacquinot who was in Shanghai at the time of the massacre → Explain who the Father is (nationality). There needs to be a comma here, it doesn't read right✅
 * For instance, → too informal ✅
 * The 1944 film, The Battle of China stated → comma after China✅
 * However, later in → Remove 'later', it doesn't work here✅
 * In one estimate the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal put → The Nanking War Crime Tribunal estimated that - That change would not be accurate because the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal made a variety of different estimates.
 * Since then the death toll of the massacre has been a major topic of discussion among historians across the world. → Says who? Also, shouldn't it be since the massacre, not since the death toll?✅ Since the 1960's. Scholars didn't discuss the issue before then. Many sources, not limited to those cited, mention that the issue is a subject of debate among historians.
 * Link Hora in his picture✅


 * Sources
 * , and on the other hand, → misplaced, it doesn't fit in with the sentence✅
 * All sentences need citations at the end of them.✅


 * Debate on the scope of the massacre
 * David Askew → You only need to use his surname from the section mention onwards, and this is the second.✅
 * Same for Hora in the 'Chinese soldiers and POWs as massacre victims' sub-section. And Kasanara✅
 * Most Japanese ultranationalists who deny the Nanking Massacre admit that the Japanese Army killed a large number of Chinese POWs, though they consider these to be legal executions,[26][27] an argument denounced by mainstream historians.[28][29] → Just include this at the end of the third paragraph instead of being a one line paragraph.✅
 * Same in the 'Geographic range and duration' sub-section. You shouldn't have one sentence/one line paragraphs.✅
 * I don't see the point of having a two sentence/one line paragraph sub-section with regard to 'The Nanking Massacre as the Second Sino-Japanese War'. Can't this be include in the previous sub-section?✅


 * Japanese views
 * In the early 1970s → comma need after 1970s✅
 * Only use Hora's surname✅
 * Shokun! → Should be in italics and without the exclamation mark, as it appears here.✅(Changed the name of the other article to Shokun!)
 * Only use Askew's surname✅
 * Again, the finally line/sentence/paragraph could be at the end of the second paragraph instead of being by itself.✅
 * In 2006 Kaz Ross → comma after 2006✅
 * Who is Kaz Ross? ✅


 * References
 * Use for the references to split into two columns instead of one long list.✅

Article seems like a bit of a stub. There is only one category at the bottom, Nanking Massacre.✅ I'm sure some more related to the topic could be added (there are several on Nanking Massacre). Perhaps also a See also section?✅ With some linked articles related to the topic, such as the massacre itself? There is not navigation template either, I'd recommended adding:
 * Other

✅, but the last one is probably too controversial to add. Of the sources I cited in the article below, every single one of them which mentioned this controversial topic stated that the massacre did not constitute genocide. at the bottom (like on Nanking Massacre.

On hold for 7 days.
 * Outcome

There are quite a lot of issues here that need addressing. Won't fail it because I believe you can turn this around in 7 days. But there are some fundamental errors, such as not explaining what the Nanking Massacre was or about. Ping me or leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or when you have done everything as I have more than 2,300 articles on my watch and I may not see any responses straight away. — ₳aron  19:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, just a small thing, there needs to be linking in your references, like The Guardian for example. Only link them the first time though. —  ₳aron  23:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)✅
 * Great, thanks for that. Also, background info is good. That's all you need, just so an unfamiliar reading has some understanding of what the reasoning for the events was. Well done, it was interesting to read. Passing. —  ₳aron  08:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)