Talk:Song Jian/GA1

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 14:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria All of my comments are open for discussion. Once complete, I will claim this review for points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Lead
 * no concern
 * Early life and education
 * "the Chinese Civil War, at the age of 14" - comma not needed
 * "After the establishment of the People's Republic of China, he studied " - I think this should specify establishment in 1949
 * "recommendation of Liu Shaoqi" - He needs a descriptor, such as "revolutionary and politician"
 * "A brilliant student" - who called him brilliant? This opinion should be removed or attributed in line.
 * "the renowned theorist" - I don't think renowned is needed.
 * "University,[4] and published" - I suggest splitting this into two sentences.
 * Career
 * "control systems of the Fifth Academy" - of seems like the wrong preposition here. I think at or for would work better.
 * "Guards, before" - comma not needed
 * "attracted the attention of Zhou" - suggest "attracted Zhou's attention"
 * One-child policy
 * "endorsed by Chen Muhua[14] and Wang Zhen" - both of these men need a descriptor before their name to indicate why their endorsement is significant.
 * Other programs
 * no conern
 * Honours and awards
 * no concern
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * I think the "One-child policy" and "Other programs" sections would work nicely as subsections under "career", but the decision to subordinate them or not is yours and will not affect GA passing either way.
 * 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:
 * no concern
 * 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:
 * no concern
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * no concern
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * no concern. AGF for the print sources.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * no concern
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * no concern
 * 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:
 * no images to review
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * no images to review
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Aside from a few minor copyediting requests, this article is in good shape. Awaiting responses to the notes above before passing. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the delay. I'm traveling right now, and will try to address the issues in a week or so. Thanks for your understanding. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for the status update! Argento Surfer (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience and apologies again for the additional delay. I've now implemented all your suggestions, with the exception of keeping "One-child policy" a separate section instead of a subsection of "Career" because it is such an important part of his legacy. It's hard to find another case where a relatively unknown technocrat could have had such a profound impact on the demographics of China, and by extension, the world. -Zanhe (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad you're back! Everything looks good to me, and I'm happy to promote this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)