Talk:Common prosperity/GA1
GA Review[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 12:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch,
fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- See spotcheck below
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Earwig shows 64%, but that's due to long quotes, so it's fine.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagZhejiang Pilot Zoneged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagZhejiang Pilot Zoneged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I will get to this review in the next week. If you have time, please consider reviewing an article at WP:GAN. I will be using this review in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Comments[edit]
- Random source spotcheck
- 12 good
- 24 good
- 35 good
- 47 good
- 48 good
- Notes
- All quotes need to be referenced with inline citations.
Done. The Account 2 (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- The list in the Zhejiang Pilot Zone section would be much better served in a table per MOS:EMBED.
- Done. The Account 2 (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- No need for tenses like "has [verb]" when talking about Xi, just use the past tense, otherwise it'll become weird in a few years. i.e. "The term has seen a large revival" --> "The term saw a large revival", "It has also been speculated" --> "It was also speculated" etc.
- Done. The Account 2 (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Otherwise, nice article. Putting it on hold for now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! The Account 2 (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.