Talk:Sheng nü/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 21:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Intriguing article. I'll review. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review it. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. I would like to take this opportunity to pre-emptively answer a few questions you may have regarding the title and subject. Editors in the past discussed the following major points when the article was first created:
 * Chinese romanization versus English translation
 * Use of diacritics
 * Pinyin use of "nu" versus "nv"
 * The fundamental factors were that the article is about the Chinese term and secondarily about the concept. In English, there is no term "leftover women" and thus an encyclopaedic article would not have been appropriate. The diacritics used in the Pinyin form are not found on the latin keyboard thus the romanization of the word excludes them. This also follows the general recommendations on Wikipedia to allow accessibility to the most likely readers. A redirect with the diacritics were created in several variations. Lastly, 'ǚ' is sometimes written as 'v', however it seems the majority of sources including ones that originate in China, and where they have used the romanization of the word, have simplified it and used a 'u'. Thus the article went with the precedent set by editorial publications rather than making our own choice based upon the editor's knowledge of Pinyin. Mkdw talk 02:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've had the review on a USB for a while, sitting, unposted. Doh!

Background


 * "begun in the mainstream" suggests the first use was in the mainstream, which is possible. That said, you'd be better off with "entered the mainstream", which covers all your bases.


 * The title of the article should be full quotation marks.
 * I have changed it to be consistent with other foreign language words such as Kamikaze which uses bold and italics for the term/word, and brackets and quotes for the translations.


 * change the hyphen into an em dash, even if the source doesn't have one
 * ✅ I think I got it. Let me know if I did the correct one. Everything else looked like a compound modifier or multi-hyphenated item.


 * An estimated amount of articles, available in the past tense as opposed to present. The last sentence of this section just seems very wishy-washy, was the BBC this on the fence? (working offline, can't look at the source)
 * ✅ The Cambridge study found at least 15 but it seems like there could have been more so I reworded it to "at least"

United States
 * "Comparisons have been made"... there's only one reference for this sentence. Is there a second comparison, beyond the BBC?
 * ✅ Found a Public Radio International story that mentions the same Newsweek article and makes the same comparison.


 * Sheng nus are unmarried (but they can at least be dating?), this article is about single women, there's a slight difference.
 * The Chinese lexicon does not specify so I'm not sure if it does or does not. In reading over the Newsweek article and followup apology article, I wouldn't necessarily say it's written solely in terms of relating to "single women". While the cover text which includes the statistics clearly does, the inside articles cover a number of identical topics related to sheng nu. For example there are parts about "unmarried women" in their late 20s and 30s, societal and family pressure, difficulties in find a partner, and career minded women. Now that the followup Newsweek article has been found I think this could actually be an opportunity to expand that section since it mentions other comparisons in how this similar concept was received in the US in the mid 80s.


 * Over-reliance on the BBC article.
 * ✅ In adding the additional references in response to the feedback the total number of different references used in the section are currently at 8. May reach 9 if I find another reference for paragraph 3.
 * I'd like to see another reference for Newsweek's apology, surely some news outlet covered their apology back in 2010.
 * ✅ I found the originally apology from Newsweek and cited it. I believe this would be sufficient to verify that Newsweek had made the apologize since it's also backed up by the BBC source.
 * The third sentence, about the "wave of anxiety", can you find an article to that extent in Google News Archives or something?
 * ✅ The Newsweek followup article specifically documents the social effects of the original article.
 * As for Sleepless mentioning the article, likely at least one review of the film mentions this.
 * ✅ ABC News followed the story and tied the article to Sleepless in Seattle.


 * Both sentences in paragraph 3 of US are referenced to reference 6. One ref is enough.
 * ✅-kind of. I found an ABC News article that focuses on the book and it's offer in relationship to sheng nu. I've used it as a source for the first sentence with the hopes that I can actually expand that paragraph. The Chinese Daily article will still need to be there for the quote and I agree that diversification of the references is something this article needs.

Other countries


 * There's a major disconnect between "as far back as 16th century" and the paragraph that actually discusses the earliest terms.
 * ✅ Did my best to flow the section from modern to modern/older origin words. Let me know if it makes sense.

Passing See also, Further reading, References, Images.

Still to review "China". -- Zanimum (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will hopefully have a chance to look over these on the weekend or later in the week. Mkdw talk 19:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Passing "China", there were only very minimal things that I changed, mostly removing unneeded italics. Let me know if any of the above comments don't make sense, I believe the review was done while partial distracted. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please have a look when you have a free moment and thank you for waiting. Regards, Mkdw talk 01:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I've been sidetracked for so long, I had a cold all last week. Everything looks wonderful now, a fantastic article on this social phenomenon! --  Zanimum (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)