Talk:Li Qiang (revolutionary)/GA1

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 13:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria
Checklist for use in review:
 * 1) Well written: the prose is clear and concise. Good English.
 * 2) Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct. No problems.
 * 3) Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections. I reduced number of paragraphs as four was really one too many, but otherwise the lead section is fine.
 * 4) Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout. No problems.
 * 5) Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning"). No problems.
 * 6) Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction. Non-fiction.
 * 7) Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation. Not applicable.
 * 8) Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations. No problems.
 * 9) All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided. Yes.
 * 10) All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc. Satisfactory as far as I can tell.
 * 11) Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline. Reflist is fine.
 * 12) No original research. No evidence of any; seems well sourced.
 * 13) No copyright violations or plagiarism. No reason to suspect anything.
 * 14) Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style. It is very good in this respect. Well within scope and just enough detail.
 * 15) Neutral. Yes. Written objectively.
 * 16) Stable. Yes.
 * 17) Illustrated, if possible. Just the one public domain image.
 * 18) Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright. No problem.

As this is one of the oldest in the list, I'll review it. Will be in touch soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This is very good and I'm pleased to be able to give it a straight pass without needing to put it on hold for anything. Just one slight concern which is the large number of red links but I think they are all related to topics that would merit articles so not actually a problem. An interesting and informative article. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review. I do intend to create articles for the red links, although it may take a while as there are so many missing China-related articles to write! -Zanhe (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good luck, Zanhe. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)