Talk:Re-education through labor/GA1

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


 * 1) It is well written [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15 px]] Please address the following issues:
 * Try a lead-in sentence for Laojiao and laogai that reads: The People's Republic of China employs two forms of corrections: one for convicted criminals (laogai), and another for people who have been accused of committing minor offenses (laojiao).
 * Perhaps the first sentence can say something like The People's Republic of China employs several forms of corrections for people who have been arrested. Under the system known as laogai... It's just a bit jarring to open on differentiating Chinese terms. It flows a bit better that way as well.--Moni3 (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. I've rewritten the section and tried to use it to both disambiguate the confusing terms laojiao and laogai, and to situate laojiao within the greater prison system.  Let me know what you think. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 15:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In the History section, can you provide a few examples of any extreme cases of re-education through labor taking a particularly long time to be completed, lack of legal defense , or extreme examples of kinds of offenses that might warrant detention in a re-education center? Can you compare these to the general and usual offenses that Chinese people commit that would earn them incarceration into a re-education center?
 * I've added some bits on lawyers being harrassed, and on individuals being detained even after being pronounced not guilty. I also added a list of things (not necessarily "extreme") that apparently might get one detained&mdash;covering drug offenders, prostitutes, petty criminals, people who try to be trafficked out of the country, and various kinds of "undesirables." I haven't been able to track down examples for any of the other things.  I put all this not in the History section, but in the ad-hoc titled "Detentions" section. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 18:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please make The China Daily italics consistent: either China Daily or The China Daily.
 * Done. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 04:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage. [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15 px]] all addressed --Moni3 (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this information is available, but I think it would help the article a lot to describe a typical re-education center. How many people does one hold? How are they housed? What kind of labor do they do? How long are their working hours? What are their living conditions? What are their labor conditions? Is there any re-education actually done? Do they take classes? What is life like when someone is released from a re-education center?
 * I've added information on just about everything I think I can for this topic: work hours, what kind of labor they do, what rights people have and don't have after release, and a tiny bit on the (possible) lack of classes and treatment in the facilities.
 * As for how many people are in an RTL camp and what the housing is like, I don't know if I can say what a "typical" one is like, but I could scour the LRF source (a list of prisons and RTLs in China); some entries have more details than others, so what I would basically be getting is random samples. For example, on page 40, Datong City RTL is described being able to house 1,200 inmates, and has an "administrative building, energy sources center, inmates' dormitory, and multi-purpose center" (whatever that means).  Huangzhulang RTL on page 59 is described as having a branch that holds 3,000 inmates and a separate branch that holds 200. Meizhou City RTL on page 62 is described as having over 1,000 inmates, 70 police and 20 "security support staff," in a 10,000 square meter facility (which began as an 800 sq m facility with just 30 inmates and 8 police, back in 1983).  Shuangkou RTL (page 78) had 3,608 inmates back in 1990. etc. etc.&mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 06:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is neutral [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15 px]]
 * Appears to be neutral.
 * 1) It is stable [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg |15 px]]
 * No edit wars or reverts.
 * 1) It is illustrated, where possible, by images [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15 px]]
 * No images are in the article.

I found it quite interesting, and eagerly await your replies. Well done so far. --Moni3 (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The lead-in reads much better now. All concerns addressed. Well done. Congratulations on the GA. --Moni3 (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)