Talk:Shanghainese people in Hong Kong/GA1

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

Reviewer: ArnabSaha (talk · contribs) 07:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments

 * Multiple [page needed], [better source] needed tags.
 * Chinese texts in some places make no sense, in my opinion. Some of them are even redlinked on enwiki.
 * The table in "Statistics" section is a mess.
 * Completely unsourced section like "Notable people". Other parts are also unsourced, like "However a quarter of ...", "Shanghainese people also ..." etc.
 * MoS issues include single sentence paras (WP:PARAGRAPH), citations in lead (WP:CITELEAD), info in lead not in body, etc.
 * Expand and break the lead into 2 parts.
 * Article link not required for the first "Shanghainese people" in lead. (MOS:FIRST)
 * Why the infobox says "North Point"?
 * Nothing written about "North Point" in lead.
 * The article isn't broad as such.
 * Comprehensiveness issue is there.
 * Citations need to be formatted correctly. Naked links like the citation [18], [31].

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Also I would suggest to have this article copyedited at WP:GOCE. Thank you for your work so far.  Saha ❯❯❯  Stay safe    13:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)