Talk:Underground City (Beijing)/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Underground City (Beijing)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Preliminary review
Great job here! This is a good, albeit small article here. I have made some copy edit and WP:MoS changes to the article but still have a few questions before promoting "Underground City" to GA status:
 * Avoid use of the phrase "it was said". Say who said "it"? Is the "it" is a popular local urban legend? State all information as fact.
 * ✅ elaborated on (or deleted) each of the three instances of this issue :)


 * "While the complex has never been used for its intended purpose, it had been maintained by city officials; water conservancy authorities checked it every year during rainy seasons, and it was included in anti-vermin sweeps. "
 * This sentence is all the in the past tense. If they stopped maintaining the tunnels, say when. If they continue to maintain the tunnels, convert to the present tense.
 * ✅ shifted to present tense since the source refers to this in the present tense


 * "as well as flood-proof gates"
 * Were there gates that could seal-off sections of the tunnels? This just seems thrown-in here.
 * ✅ made some elaboration on the flood-proofing features and on the disaster-proofing features of the complex in general


 * The citations are formatted improperly:
 * Only the titles of published books, albums, newspapers, magazines, etc. are written in italics. The titles of articles should simply be in quotations.
 * website URLs should be hyperlinked from the title; they shouldn't be listed on their own as they are at present.
 * Editors typically use Template:Cite or this Wiki reference generator to form references.
 * ✅ Woah thanks for the heads up on this. I always thought I was supposed to use the same APA citation style I've always used in typewritten reports and such.

Other than that, my only other concern is the article's length. At first glance it appears to be too short, but I think there is enough detail to adequately cover the article's subject. Once those few items are fixed, I'll be happy to promote to GA. One final note: I will move this article from "Places" to just "Geography". The "places" subcategory is really just for countries/cities/towns, etc. If you have any questions you can contact me or simply respond on this page, I'll have it on my watchlist. Best, epicAdam (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey there Epicadam! Thanks for the suggestions and help. I'm still not terribly familiar with the MoS (it's huge! I mean I totally don't believe the guy I heard about who condensed it to a two-page summary...) or with the some of the "usual practices" amongst experienced editors here, so the suggestions are very welcome. I'll get to work on your suggestions. Is there a time limit for improvements to be made? - Samuel  Tan  01:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made changes per your suggestions (see the done tags above heh). Other than that, I've added a little information from two new sources, doublechecked some of the citations (and had to make some corrections), and corrected some minor punctuation errors and such. Do let me know if there's any other way I should improve it. Thanks again!- Samuel  Tan  05:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Samuel Tan. To answer your question about time limits, the answer is both yes and no. Officially, "holds" are supposed to be in effect for seven days. In practice, however, holds are typically left in place for as long as the editors need to get the article to GA criteria. If an article is really bad, or no editors are actively working on the article, then a GA might be failed. But failing a GA nomination isn't really accomplishing what GA is set up to do, which is to make wikipedia articles better. I see you've already made some improvements so I'll be happy to perform a second review. Best, -epicAdam (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Second review
The article is very nearly there. The only issue now is that the citations are not quite formatted properly (I know it seems like this is a relatively minor point, but there have been efforts at WP:GAN to really increase the standards on citing sources). Web sources such as the ones used in this article should be listed as follows: Author's_Last_Name, Author's_First_Name. "Title in quotation marks (linked with URL)". Publisher (Publishing Date). Retrieved on date.

If there is no listed author or no listed publishing date, you can leave those blank, but all citations must include at least the title of the work, the publisher (i.e. the website's name) and the retrieve date. Taking an example from your article, your China Daily source's citation should appear as:

"Going underground". ChinaDaily (2005-12-30). Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

Notice, the dates here are wikilinked because they are full dates (day, month, year). Since there was no author, that information was simply left out.

Also, please remember that references should come after the punctuation mark:
 * Good: "The cow jumped over the moon. "
 * Not good: "The cow jumped over the moon ."
 * Worst: "The cow jumped over the moon."

Typically, the reference will be provided at the end of the sentence, unless it helps with organization. For example:
 * Okay: "Doctor Smith escaped captivity on September 15, 1961; his brother was released two weeks later. "
 * Better: "Doctor Smith escaped captivity on September 15, 1961; his brother was released two weeks later. "

If you have any other questions, please ask. Best, epicAdam (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ (I love using these ✅ templates...) I've changed the citation format and ensured that no references came just before a punctuation mark. Our of sheer curiousity: I noticed that the MoS doesn't give such detailed guidelines about citations, except that we are to follow one of the widely-used styles (APA, etc). I'm quite sure that there's no APA guideline about adding hyperlinks or wikifying (heh...), so am I right that these "standards" are simply established practices based on Wikipedians' consensus? And if so, does it mean that the only way to become familiar with the standards in to take part in a whole lot of editing discussions? And thanks again for the review. Cheers! - Samuel  Tan  12:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are definitely correct about the unwritten standards. On Wikipedia, there are few written policies that everyone is required to follow. There are, however, areas in which a generally style guideline has been established, and from that point forward editors typically follow those self-established "rules". The number one rule for an article, however, is consistency; that is, to use the same formatting throughout an article.
 * A word about quotations: Quotations are meant to illustrate a point made in the article, and shouldn't be used to form the article text. For example, I removed the quote about the flood because it's just as easy to paraphrase the information into your own words. An example where it might be a good idea to use a quotation is when you're using it to aid in a description, like you did in the lead.


 * As for the GA review on Underground City, I think the article is well-written and generally conforms to GA guidelines. While it may appear to be short, I think the major points have been covered to the greatest extent possible and answers the main questions readers would have about the site. I will therefore be happy to promote the article to GA. Best, epicAdam (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey there epicAdam. Thanks for the help and suggestions! I think I learned quite a bit from the process. See you around!- Samuel  Tan  00:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)