Talk:Chen Guangcheng/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ThaddeusB (talk · contribs) 00:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

From a quick scan of the article, it looks to be pretty close to GA standards. However, a few things popped out at me that will need corrected:

There are a few ^{[citation needed]} tags that need addressed
(minor points) The lead should be all referenced or all non-referenced. (The latter is more normal.) Unless the date is important, that level of precision is not necessary in the lead.
Currently the article suffers form recentism: it focuses heavily on Chen's escape from China. While important, it is by far not the most important part of his career, yet it receives the most weight. Either that information should be pared down, or the other sections expanded (or both).

Once these issues are addressed, I will conduct a more formal review. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The concern about recentism is one that's been noted a couple times before. I'd mentioned I would do some work on this, and I think Khazar has maybe said same. Will put this higher on my to-do list. Homunculus (duihua) 01:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning and lovely to hear from you. The timing is particularly good as I'm just entering what should be a freeish week at work so can be around quite a bit to respond to issues raised. I've dealt with the ^{[citation needed]} tags - I've been looking for sources for them since I tagged the statements and haven't been able to find anything reliable enough so the section has been rewritten. Similarly the lede has now lost it's training wheels, so to speak. The article's focus on the escape was a significant problem (see, for example, this previous version) but this has been pared down signifcantly and I have done some more in the last few hours. Also I think it's quite important to note that the escape is (so far) the thing that Chen has done that has best highlighted the issues he wanted to raise with his activism. I'm aware we might run into criteria 3(b) here, but could we take that on a case-by-case basis? I'm looking forward to your full review. Fayedizard (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is more one of balance than unnecessary detail. That is, the detail on the escape is not necessarily unreasonable, but as it currently stands the article is roughly 40% material from the last 5 months. If you want to keep the current detail level for the escape, then I suggest working on expanding the rest of the article. For example, right now the article has 4 paragraphs on 10 years of activism, and 11 paragraphs for 2 months of escape. Surely the activism itself deserves greater weight than it is now receiving. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue there is the lack of good, reliable, sources for his activism - is balance part of the GA criteria? My wariness about the detail was criteria 3a, but if you're happy with the level of detail then are we okay on that one? Fayedizard (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Balance is a part of neutrality. Putting a large emphasis on the activity of the last six months creates a biased picture of Chen's life. I'm not saying there if a huge amount of material available on the pre-Linyi complaint activism, but there is certainly some. (The Chinese Wikipedia lists 4 or 5 examples; unfortunately, their article is not well referenced.) Chen apparently was already drawing national (but no international) attention in China before 2005. I find it hard to believe that none of the hundreds of English stories run in 2005-6 contain any information about his prior career, and I'm sure Chinese stories on that period exist.

However, Chen is clearly known primarily for the Linyi complaint and its aftermath. Unfortunately, this area also receives less weight than the recent escape from China. More can and should be written in this area. (Chinese Wikipedia has a decent-sized article just on the case.) As the article stands, the implication is that it is primarily the escape is what makes Chen important, which is certainly not true. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been efforts to expand on Chen's early life and activism, and more can be done there. Thaddeus, any thoughts on a reasonable timeframe to allow the page authors to address these issues? Homunculus (duihua) 03:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as progress is being made, I am happy to leave the nomination open indefinitely. However, I don't anticipate the necessary additions taking more than a couple weeks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can't imagine it will take too long. Thanks for your patience. Homunculus (duihua) 15:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - since the GA review started Homunculus has done an amazing job with the article (Changes here [1]). ThaddeusB, does this go some way to satisfying your concerns? Fayedizard (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work indeed. Yes, my general concerns have been met. I will go over the article with a fine-toothed comb within the next two days or so to see if there are any minor concerns and post a formal review at that time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I was unexpectedly away the last week or so. I'll try to post a full review tonight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Look forward to seeing your review, and hopefully we can address any outstanding issues promptly. Homunculus (duihua) 20:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thaddeus hasn't edited since the above comment. Should I put it back in the queue or are you fine waiting a little while longer for his return? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to say we would appreciate guidance on what would normally happen in such situations... what's the usual process? Fayedizard (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and the follow up question is - what date would it go back with - the 1st of July, which is the time it was nominated and, which would make it one of the older articles on the page - or the X of September, which might mean that by the time it got around the loop again it would be a six month turnaround on a GA...? Fayedizard (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's put back in the queue, then it will go in July 1 where it is now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking out, Wizardman.Homunculus (duihua) 16:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for it to be put back on the queue - with the proviso that if ThaddeusB comes back okay then we'd definitely like them to continue - does that work for everyone?Fayedizard (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, did so. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]