Cultural Revolution was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Is there a reason why Cultural Revolution is abbreviated as CR? It seems to have been a unilateral decision made by @Lfstevens in late 2023, and doesn't really make sense as it is (thankfully) not applied uniformly on all instances. If there isn't any opposition to it, I will revert all of them to Cultural Revolution or the Cultural Revolution. I think there is an argument to be made of keeping the long form of CRG "Cultural Revolution Group" as well. Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with switching them back, but I don't think it benefits the reader to do so. Shortcuts are a good thing. If inconsistency is the only critique, I'm happy to convert the rest of the references. Lfstevens (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a bit of attestation of the initialism in sources—which makes sense, because it's a proper name that is both pretty long and will be stated over and over. I would be okay with establishing its use in sources, and using it a bit. Going to be awkward either way, though. Remsense诉19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. When the tag was added, its readable prose size was 16,483 words. Consider splitting content into sub-article or condensing it. The article size impacts usability in multiple ways: Reader issues, such as attention span, readability, organization, information saturation, etc. (when articles are large). Total article size should be kept reasonably low, particularly for readers using slow internet connections or mobile devices or who have slow computer loading. Some large articles exist for topics that require depth and detail, but typically articles of such size are split into two or more smaller articles.
This isn't drive-by tagging, and in egregious cases like these they really don't need to provide any specific proposals. "It's way too long, and we should talk about it" is the operative point here, and it's worth bringing that up in itself. Remsense ‥ 论06:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed—this is essentially what I've been grappling with since I first started editing: I've been trying to use 10k as an arbitrary but concrete target, and trying to figure out which third to cut out of the article. It's very poorly written in parts, so frankly that makes it a bit more difficult to discern which parts are truly undue versus just poorly articulated. If anyone has any pointers or analysis here, please let me know! Remsense ‥ 论06:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I briefly had a burst of wanting to work on this aspect and made some revisions.
Further specific ideas that I am not so interested in doing myself but others could pick up include:
1. Going through the chronological sections and phrasing more directly to lose some of the flowery language, unnecessary adjectives, and so on. There are also some quotations that can likely be simplified.
2. Going through the further reading and external links and reducing them to a more selective bunch.
3. Another pass to eliminate invisible comments of marginal use.
4. Wikilink review: remove more unnecessary quotation marks, remove duplicative wikilinks. I have done some of this, but not in a comprehensive way, just as I noticed them. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to work through the duplicative wikilinks. Thanks for providing a good framework for improvement, really appreciate it as sometimes I see a tag but I have no clue what to do to improve the article so thank you! <3 Thatautistichistorian (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki Education assignment: Global Chinese Literature
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2024 and 9 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MinhanhChin3344 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Surcease.
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2024 and 9 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MinhanhChin3344 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Surcease.