Talk:Qualifying industrial zone/GA1

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

Pre-review Notes

 * 1) How many QIZs are there? Put that in the lead.


 * 1) Countries aren't wikified.


 * 1) Many confusing terms aren't wikified. Basically, link any terms that someone not familiar with the subject might not understand.


 * 1) A better explanation of the regualations section would be nice.


 * 1) Expansion of Criticisms section possible?

Review by ErikTheBikeMan
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * There doesn't seem to be that much citing/referenceing. For example, the entire first paragraph has only one citation. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Per above. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Per notes 1, 4 and 5. Also, an expansion on the history section would be nice, if possible.ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * There may be some conflict, per this diff. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No further edits were made relating to that diff. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Are there images?
 * B. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * C. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * I'm not too sure that the last image is apporpriate. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass.
 * I'm placing this review on hold for seven days for the nominator/other editors to fix the issues raised above. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Passed. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * C. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * I'm not too sure that the last image is apporpriate. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass.
 * I'm placing this review on hold for seven days for the nominator/other editors to fix the issues raised above. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Passed. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Passed. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Replies
Thanks for reviewing it. Zithan (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) How many QIZs are there? Put that in the lead.
 * Done
 * 1) Countries aren't wikified.
 * WP:CONTEXT does away with linking country names (Reference: Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-08/Dispatches 2)
 * WP:CONTEXT states that "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully...This can include... topics that already have an article..." I would like to see some of the names of major players in QIZs linked, even if the links are to "Economy of..." ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Many confusing terms aren't wikified. Basically, link any terms that someone not familiar with the subject might not understand.
 * Could you point out some terms? I'll be glad to wikify them.
 * 1) *tariff or quota restrictions
 * 2) *trade zones
 * 3) *eight-year old free trade agreement between the United States and Israel (link to the article about that agreement)
 * 4) *value-added goods
 * 5) *boycott
 * Et cetera. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) A better explanation of the regualations section would be nice.
 * Tried to convert it to prose... its a horrible mess now. I'm not sure if this is what would make it clearer. Let me know. I'll try and think of something better
 * I still think that all the precentages make the section hard to comprehend. Perhaps the list was better, with an explanation at the endErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Expansion of Criticisms section possible?
 * So far, that's the only reliable source that covers criticism. :(
 * Understood. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)