Talk:Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bstephens393 (talk · contribs) 15:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to review this article, but it may take about a week or so to carefully scrutinize it. Bstephens393 (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I look forward to your review. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead author on this article seems to be away, so I'll start trying to address some of these issues in the interim. I'll indicate below which concerns I've addressed Homunculus (duihua) 15:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BStephens, thanks for your patience on this. I'm not sure where Thaddeus has gone. I'll try to address the outstanding issues this week.Homunculus (duihua) 17:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've done some work on the remaining issues identified, but am going to clean it up quite a bit more. I'll be on the road for the next week or so, though, so please humor me a little further. The nominator is still MIA. Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 14:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While there have been no further updates by Homunculus, there have been a spate of edits in the past week by Zujine (talk). Can these be checked to see whether they address the concerns? (I notice that there has been editing for length, which may address the "biggest problem" identified below.) If not, and if Zujine is not interesting in pursuing these concerns, it may be time to bring this nomination to an end, as it has been on-going for over two months, and the original nominator is no longer around. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main concerns below have been addressed. Or, at a minimum, we've made good strides. I'll go through everything more carefully now to see if there are any major outstanding issues. I also left a note with the reviewer yesterday to see if he/she feels the changes were adequate. But yes, I think in the coming days we ought to conclude this one way or another.Homunculus (duihua) 02:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Bstephens393

Overall the article is very thorough, well written and informative. As far as I can tell, it is factually accurate, uses plenty of good sources (though I noticed that the one most commonly cited is the state-owned Global Times—kind of interesting), and it seems neutral, complete, and stable. I do have some comments though, and I think once these are addressed it will be all set. Since this is my first GA review, I would also welcome second opinions.

In the introduction, consider restructuring the first sentence such that the article’s title appears in bold face as early as possible (for instance, “the forced abortion of Feng Jianmei occurred on June 2, 2012, while she was in her seventh month of pregnancy.”) Done

It would be nice if you could clarify where this occurred (city and province) early on in the introduction. Is it Ankang city that oversees her village? Done

“…increased criticism of the China's one-child policy” — remove “the” Done

“the case has also been cited as an example of how the internet is empowering ordinary people in a society perceived by outsiders as oppressive and known for government censorship”: well, the country is oppressive in terms of censorship. That’s not just a subjective, or outsider, perception. Maybe just something like “the case has also been cited as an example of how the internet is empowering ordinary people in an environment of government censorship.” Done

Looks like there are a couple wikilinks you could add, such as ‘European Parliament’ and ‘U.S. State Department’ (by the same token, some things probably don’t need links, like the US $ in the ‘background’ section). Done

”These violations are said to be especially prevalent in rural areas” — said by whom? This statement rings true to me, but it’s kind of vague as currently worded. Done

“Since 2001, abortion after the sixth month of pregnancy has been illegal in China.” — but I assume that, like the laws prohibiting coercive sterilizations and forced abortions, that this law is not always honored. Is that right? Done

The title for the section detailing the events in question (Feng Jianmei) is kind of vague. Could it be change to something more descriptive? Done

The quotes from Zhang Kai and Li Chengpeng are sourced to an article in the Economist, but I don’t see them in the article. Done

“Human rights organization 64Tianwang also posted the story...” — Looks like this links to a guy named Huang Qi, and maybe his Weibo name is 64Tianwang or something. Either way, seems he’s a human rights activist, not a human rights organization...? Done

Instead of ‘continuing impact,’ consider renaming the first half of the section ‘litigation,‘ and the second part renamed as “harassment of family members,” or something like that. Done

I would also recommend renaming “‘Editorials and commentary on case's effects’” to “international media coverage” or, alternately, “significance.” That section could also probably be summarized a little more to avoid WP:QUOTEFARM.

I looked at doing this, but I think it requires more thought than I can afford to give it this morning. The problem is that some of these apparently redundant sections seem to be an important part of the chronology of the event, so I don't want to classify them under 'significance' or 'aftermath' or some such thing. I'll return to it later. Homunculus (duihua) 14:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I think this issue has been addressed fairly well. It's still a bit of a quotefarm, but a good deal of the extraneous content has been removed or reduced, and other material paraphrased.Homunculus (duihua) 03:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem I see is that there’s quite a bit of repetition between sections in the latter part of the article, making it a good deal longer than it ought to be. For instance, there is a section titled “International reaction,” and another called “international action.” Similarly, there doesn’t seem to be a need for distinct sections on “Official response and calls to reform in China” and “Chinese government reaction.” It seems like a big job, but maybe related material like this could be consolidated and summarized a little better.

DoneIssue should be resolved now, but let me know if you feel there are outstanding problems. Homunculus (duihua) 03:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you think you'll be able to address these concerns, and I look forward to passing the article! Bstephens393 (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]