Talk:Shaoguan incident/GA1

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I had to make a large number of copy-edits for grammar, spelling, style and readability. Please consider getting someone to copy-edit articles before submitting them for review at WP:GAN
 * A small group of Uyghurs arrived on 2 May, and workers at the factory remarked that relations between them deteriorated as their numbers increased. Is that between Han and Uyghur. If so say so.
 * They noted that rights of workers, Han and Uyghur alike, were frequently violated by verbal abuse from factory supervisors, unpaid overtime, poor dormitory conditions and illegal labour contracts. should this be "he" if it is the director of China Labor Watch?
 * Official sources state that the rioting began at around 2 a.m.,[16] and various sources said that they lasted until at least 4.30 a.m., when police arrived.[. This is rather clumsy - "Official sources", then "various sources"?
 * ' 'Shaoguan authorities moved the Uyghur workers to temporary accommodation, and the workers were sent to work on 7 July at another facility belonging to Early Light'' - Clunsy - the workers were sent to work?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * ref #8 requires a log in so is not a reliable source.
 * I added subscription required and reinstated the original URL, as the cache has expired. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed three and tagged two dead links using WP:CHECKLINKS
 * Sources that I could check appeared reliable
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Broad and focussed
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article follows the neutral point of view policy
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * ON hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, all concerns addressed, I am happy to list this as a good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review so far. Re: point 2: there is a link to google cache which would allow you to verify the contents. I would point out that a source is reliable if it fulfils certain criteria, and I believe the FEER does satisfy them. The FEER is available as a paper journal. Notwithstanding, I do not believe that requiring a login to access the document is a WP:RS criterion. I will go through the links, and deal with the other issues after the holidays. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ON hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, all concerns addressed, I am happy to list this as a good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review so far. Re: point 2: there is a link to google cache which would allow you to verify the contents. I would point out that a source is reliable if it fulfils certain criteria, and I believe the FEER does satisfy them. The FEER is available as a paper journal. Notwithstanding, I do not believe that requiring a login to access the document is a WP:RS criterion. I will go through the links, and deal with the other issues after the holidays. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review so far. Re: point 2: there is a link to google cache which would allow you to verify the contents. I would point out that a source is reliable if it fulfils certain criteria, and I believe the FEER does satisfy them. The FEER is available as a paper journal. Notwithstanding, I do not believe that requiring a login to access the document is a WP:RS criterion. I will go through the links, and deal with the other issues after the holidays. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)