Talk:Gui Minhai/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 09:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. It looks like you've had quite a wait for this article, so I'll do my best to get through this quickly. I don't see any good reasons to quick-fail this, so I will review it in detail over the next few days. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. 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:

2. 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:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No issues with stability that I can see

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   I cannot find images that would be useful/appropriate

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   See above

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Specific comments

Biography

1. Is there absolutely no information available on the early life of this individual? The article says he was born in China: surely there should be sources saying when or where? Right now, the whole thing starts with his college career.
2. The article should say precisely what his degree was; "graduated" generally means a bachelor's degree, it's true, but it can also mean a two year diploma, or even the equivalent of 12th grade in some asian countries.
3. The article implies there was a connection between his naturalization in Sweden and the tiananmen square protests: what was this connection? How about something like "after the tiananmen square massacre, the Swedish authorities granted many chinese people permanent residency."

   I'm not sure what more can be said of this. The Tiananmen massacre caused a huge shock in civil society. A very big chill that descended on the people, and there was much more censorship and self-censorship after it. I added a line about how Gui's daughter thought her father felt about Swedish notion of freedom, but I don't want to invent anything either. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

4. "He worked as a consultant in a German affiliate of Nordpool Consulting in 2003." What happened to his company? When did he start working for the German affiliate? Some clarity is needed. If the current sentence is all that is known, then perhaps "In 2003 he was known to be working for..."

   amended as you suggested. I don't think what happened to Nordpool or his own consultancy after that is of any great relevance to the biography.-- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

5. I am not familiar with Chinese naming customs. For a person with the common name format of given name - surname, we would use the surname in all uses after the first. In this case, is "Gui" appropriate/usual in similar circumstances?

   I added a template to indicate that "Gui" is the man's surname. Hope it's clearer now.

   -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

   Okay, thank you. This addresses most of the problem, but the header now reads "this is a chinese name" where properly speaking it should say (IMO) "This article uses Chinese names..." I'm not sure if there is a way to address this?

   The other Chinese language template is used to indicate the presence of Chinese characters in the article. Editors usually just leave names in the order as per the namespace. Then it's up to the readers to work it out about these people, for example Bo Xilai. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Publishing career

1. "Gui had written some 200 books" is probably better as "Gui wrote approximately 200 books"...
2. "In 2006, Gui became an author and publisher" one does not miraculously become those things: you become an author by getting something you wrote published, and you become a publisher by running the publication process for something somebody else wrote. Some clarity is needed here.

   There is nothing in sources to indicate his motivations. What we know is that he started his working life working as a publisher, and a financial motive is mentioned a little later. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

3. Is "paramount leader" something that can be linked? Otherwise, it sounds like puffery, although I know it's not.
4. "communications routed"; "routed" can mean very different things depending on the context, and its usage makes little sense here. I'm not sure what the sentence means, else I'd fix it myself.
5. "set up a string of publishing companies"; what, all at once? This is rather confusing. Perhaps "Beginning in 2006, he set up several publishing companies..."

   amended as you suggested.-- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

6. Was it only Gui's shares that were held by his wife? If so, some clarification might be needed, beyond the copy-edit I performed.

   There are three shareholders – Gui and Lee Bo – or rather Mrs Lee Bo (aka Sophie Choi) – both with 34%, and Lui Bo with 32%. I have now clarified.-- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

7. "Due to the fact that his works are sensitive to the Chinese regime" This sentence is not very clear. Does the government consider his work damaging, and censor it (or threaten to)? Or is he being secretive about the mere possibility?

   Basically, the regime dislikes any criticism or negative stories of its leaders. I have attempted clarification, and there is a long history of the regime attempting to silence or imprison its critics both home and abroad.-- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

   This is better, but not totally resolved. Perhaps I wasn't very clear. "Gui's work projects were always shrouded in secrecy" sounds odd, in that it implies a mysterious unnamed force keeping them secret. Perhaps just amend this to "Gui kept his projects shrouded.."

   amended. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

8. "Media reported that Gui published half the books written on Bo Xilai and had benefited financially to the tune of HK$10 million when Bo became a hot topic in 2013" Again, clarification is needed here. Did Gui publish most of the books written about Xilai, written by other people? Also, some links are needed so that those who don't have the background can understand when and why Bo Xilai became well-known. Finally, "hot-topic" is colloquial: "came to the media's attention" is wordier but clearer, or "became a topic of news coverage."

   I have attempted clarification. It is unclear how many other books not written by him were published by his companies. Bo Xila and his wife were implicated in a massive political scandal in which an Englishman was murdered. This can be referred to at the Bo Xilai article as well as the Wang Lijun incident article. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

   I have made a couple of minor copy-edits, and would consider this resolved: but please check the version that I wrote.

   OK -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Disappearance

1. "dialled the number that last called her regarding Gui" I'm not sure what this means.

   Now clarified-- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

2. "the four men, who had left the telephone.." so these are the men who searched for the computer?

   Point 2: Yes-- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Confirmation of detention

1. "may have been a case of mistaken identity." A little more detail here would be helpful: is the source suggesting that the Chinese captured a different person, or that they gave out information that was incorrect because it was about a different person?

   Now clarified-- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

   Actually, now I'm even more confused, because I don't know what "homophone" means. I'd try and clarify myself, except I cannot understand Mandarin. Are you saying that a) the person the chinese said had fled, had a name that was a homophone for our Gui Minhai? and b) that the "doubts" are that the chinese had arrested somebody else?

   yes, you got it. Chinese is a tonal language where there are may characters that can be pronounced with the exact same sound; the two Chinese names in the lede 敏 and 民 are different characters, but in Mandarin, the pronunciation of the two words is identical, a bit like "sea" and "see". -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

2. What does Dahlin's confession have to do with Minhai?

   Hopefully clarified – there was not much attention given to Gui's disappearance until a fellow Swede was forced to confess on Chinese TV.-- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

3. The second paragraph pf this section needs to be rewritten in the past tense.

   The case is ongoing, the Chinese govt and Swedish governments are stalled and Gui remains under detention. Should I still rewrite the sentences?-- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

   I would say so, yes. Especially because it's only the first couple of sentences...the rest of the paragraph is in the past tense.

   I think it's done now. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 20:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

4. "The Guardian drew a connection with Operation Fox Hunt – to repatriate corrupt officials or opponents of the regime" this makes little sense grammatically. I think you want to say "The Guardian drew a connection to Operation Fox Hunt, which was a Chinese government effort to repatriate [...] and which may also have ... etc." I'm not making the change myself, because I'm not entirely sure that's what you mean.

   Now clarified, I hope...-- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Reactions

1. Again, some problems with tense: the whole thing should be in past tense, unless it is mentioning something that we know to be current at this moment.

   The case is ongoing, the Chinese govt and Swedish governments are stalled and Gui remains under detention. Should I still rewrite the sentences? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

   Well, maybe I could be clearer. The diplomatic efforts are ongoing, and therefore "Sweden has been handing" is correct. However, "Bei ling believes.." is a problem, and should be "Bei ling said in January 2016..." Is that clearer?

   done -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

2. "Gui's unacceptable treatment" the treatment is quite possibly unacceptable, but this language is too judgemental to be representing Wikipedia's voice. "swedish minister (insert name here) termed Gui's treatment unacceptable.." or something like that would be far better.

   Now modified as suggested -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

3. "handling the matter as a consular issue" what does this mean?

   Now clarified, I hope... -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

   Still rather jargon-ish. Is there a good link that can be added here?

   I have simplified the language. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 20:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

4. "mainland news website" should either be linked, or explained.

   All Chinese news media are under the Communist Party's control. But as the news source is not one of the major well-known names, it's probably better to just say "state media" -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

5. "sent by post under false cover" some clarification necessary. Is this literally the cover of another book, or does this mean something else?

   Now clarified, I hope... -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

6. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the EU statement is the first time the article mentions that anybody other than Gui was kidnapped.

   Big problem here is the unusual case where a state carries out an abduction and renditioning is now increasingly frequent and brazen. The circumstantial evidence is strong, but nobody dares to come out and say so because these two events cannot be definitively proven, and even many governments are afraid of upsetting China. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

   You misunderstand me: it's not the kidnapping I'm concerned about here. It's that you talk about the EU asking for the release of Gui and his colleagues: but nowhere in the article prior to that does it say that those colleagues were missing at all.

   OIC, I added a couple of sentences to provide the context. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

   I'm afraid this is not done yet, and perhaps its because I haven't explained myself clearly enough. The EU statement asks for the release of Gui's colleagues. Therefore, the article needs to mention, before the EU statement, that these colleagues were kidnapped.

   Maybe you missedit, I added a few lines yesterday in the "disappearance" section, putting into context his colleagues disappearances both before and after his own disappearance. let me know if it's insufficient. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 19:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

   You're right, cached version of the page, I think...

7. You mention two occasions on which Swedish officials met Gui: what came of those? is anything known?

   Nothing is known other that "he is safe". -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

8. This is a somewhat more general point. It seems that the article sort of dances around saying what actually happened to him: but surely there are multiple news sources which explicitly say "Gui was kidnapped and taken to China by government security forces" or something like that?

   See response to point 6 -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

9. The last, new paragraph is necessary information, but has some POV issues: the language is far too close to what a tabloid might write. Phrases like "there is now little doubt," "celebrated the first anniversary..." and "explosive revelations" should be avoided. I can copy-edit a little, but you will have to look it over.

   it's fine, thanks -- Ohc ^¡digame! 20:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Lede

1. I will get to the lede in detail once the rest is sorted out: but right now, it has information (one country, two systems for instance), which is not there in the body. This is a bit of an issue, because the lede is a summary only: it should not contain anything that is not in the body.
2. The lede is generally much better now. However, the "worldwide" is somewhat excessive given the language in the body.
3. I also think the lede should contain a mention of the fact that many people feel the confession was forced/involuntary.
4. The lede should mention the Chinese authorities reason for holding him: "The Chinese government has stated that he was being held for..." or something like that.

   I believe these have been dealt with in the volley of changes in the last two weeks. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Size

1. At just short of 1400 words, this is an extremely short article. This is not in and of itself a problem, but given the size, I need to be absolutely sure that all substantive information in any reliable sources has been covered, before passing this.
2. Even the first source I checked, the Guardian source, has information that is not in the article but which would be helpful to include: the fact that his publishing was financially lucrative, for instance.

   This still seems to be true: the article, for instance, says that he is in contact with his wife and daughter. If this is untrue, okay, but then it should be mentioned and contradicted in the article.

3. The fact that he lived apart from his wife and daughter is probably worth mentioning (from the scmp source)

   His daughter has been actively campaigning for his release, but the article is not primarily about her. Although his wife is mentioned, and his matrimonial life (separation and whatnot) is not widely discussed in media, and so there's insufficient information to write any more without going into speculation and conjecture. However, I think the complexities of his everyday work life are sufficient to give the impression that his family life is not necessarily on an equal footing to his writing activities. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

   Not entirely convinced, but I'm going to AGF that you know the source material well, and that any further detail is necessarily going to be dodgy with respect to sourcing.

4. The "Chinese pen" source says he has a master's degree: why is this not mentioned?

Sources

1. Just removed the check mark from the copyvio criterion. The sentences sourced to the Guardian article by Holmes are too close to the original text: not sure why neither google nor Earwig's tool flagged it.

   Now fixed. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 22:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

2. There are a number of bare urls: these need to be fixed, to prevent linkrot.

   Now fixed. I intend to archive the relevant links in due course. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 22:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

3. The guardian source doesn't have the name "mighty current media," and so the current source order is confusing. Can you duplicate the scmp source to just after "set up Mighty Current Media."?

   I don't know where they got that name from; nobody else seems to have it. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 22:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

4. I'm a little uncertain about a few of the sources: Amazon, Hong Kong Free Press, Apple Daily, yahoo news, and mashable.com. Can you explain why these fit the WP:RS guideline?

   I am happy that they comply with WP:RS except for Mashable, and I will remove that citation. Amazon is only used to show a book he wrote, showing his pen name; Yahoo News is a news aggregator and the story is in fact from Reuters (a reputable news agency); Hong Kong Free Press and Apple Daily are sufficiently reliable under the circumstances in light of the growing self-censorship in Hong Kong. Apple actually has a strong investigative journalism tradition and HKFP is a new independent news agency not controlled by pro-Beijing businessmen; Boxun is a website run by Chinese dissidents in the USA and again I think its use is justified due to the exceptional nature of the story.-- Ohc ^¡digame! 22:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

   Honestly I think that's a slight misinterpretation of WP:EXCEPTIONAL: an exceptional story requires a higher standard of sourcing, not a lower one. I would be okay with using Boxun, if you provide in-text attribution: ie " according to Boxun, a website run by chinese dissidents, etc etc"

   ok, understood. I realise it's only used to substantiate the number of books he wrote, and i can find another source to back Boxun up. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

   Okay, this seems to be dealt with except for yahoo news. Can you replace those with the original source? Reuters, or whatever?

   I do not see what the issue is with Yahoo!News. These links are commonly accepted without question in articles.Nevertheless I have replaced them. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 22:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

5. I am going to AGF on all sources in Mandarin.

   noted. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 22:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Structure

1. I would suggest breaking up the "biography" into level two sections. The first one can be "early life" (which could potentially be combined with "personal life,") then "publishing career", then "disappearance," which would have two or three sub-sections. The prose portion of the article essentially has one massive section with many sub-sections, and one other section of one sentence. My suggestion is to turn all the sub-sections into level two headings, renaming the first: but the specifics are up to you. What is certain is that stylistically it is very strange right now.
2. The last section of one sentence is also odd. Again, I would suggest combining it with the first paragraph of "biography" to make a new section called "early and life and family"

   Now given a slightly different structure. I hope this resolves your concerns. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

General comments

• @Ohconfucius: This article as it stands does not, in my view, meet the standard for comprehensiveness; even reviewing a couple of sources is enough for me to see that. My personal position on reviewing is that I shouldn't fail it if I can help it get there. Therefore, I am going to hold off of adding comments for now, to give you a chance to add more information to this article. Right now it is dominated by his disappearance: you need to dig through the sources and add other material, which clearly exists. Creating more sections might be appropriate. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• @Ohconfucius: I'm assuming that you are still expanding this, so I'm only leaving a few comments in passing now: let me know when you feel you've addressed the point about comprehensiveness, and I'll resume the full review. Vanamonde (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• @Ohconfucius: It's been a while, and you don't seem to have edited despite being active: can I take this to mean that you have finished, and would like me to continue the review? Vanamonde (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Vanamonde93: Thanks for your indulgence. I've been looking through the sources and I think it's probably as comprehensive as it could be. I'm happy for you to plunge into it now, and I'll respond to further comments as you progress in your review. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
• @Ohconfucius: I'm fine with you numbering my comments, but would you mind leaving your replies below each comment, rather than in a bunch at the bottom? The current format makes threaded discussion rather difficult. Vanamonde (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• @Ohconfucius: There's only a couple of points left, and you've clearly been active for the last few days: can I ask you to finish this? Vanamonde (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I have a few important deadlines this week, so I will see to the article next week. Thanks for your indulgence. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Okay. Being busy in RL is perfectly understandable. Vanamonde (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
      • @Vanamonde93: I think we're there. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Alright, passed. Congratulations, and thanks for sticking with the process. Vanamonde (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)