Jump to content

Talk:Shanghainese people in Hong Kong/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: ArnabSaha (talk · contribs) 07:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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:
  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:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

[edit]
  • Multiple [page needed], [better source] needed tags.
  • Chinese texts in some places make no sense, in my opinion. Some of them are even redlinked on enwiki.
  • The table in "Statistics" section is a mess.
  • Completely unsourced section like "Notable people". Other parts are also unsourced, like "However a quarter of ...", "Shanghainese people also ..." etc.
  • MoS issues include single sentence paras (WP:PARAGRAPH), citations in lead (WP:CITELEAD), info in lead not in body, etc.
  • Expand and break the lead into 2 parts.
  • Article link not required for the first "Shanghainese people" in lead. (MOS:FIRST)
  • Why the infobox says "North Point"?
  • Nothing written about "North Point" in lead.
  • The article isn't broad as such.
  • Comprehensiveness issue is there.
  • Citations need to be formatted correctly. Naked links like the citation [18], [31].

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Also I would suggest to have this article copyedited at WP:GOCE. Thank you for your work so far.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  13:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]