Talk:Wang Bingzhang (general)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wang Bingzhang (general)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Alex Shih (talk · contribs) 15:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• I will take this one. The article appears to be relatively short, even though the subject is not really one of the major figures in modern Chinese military history. I will be spending the next few days going through each sections in detail and make suggestions before doing the final checklist.

Lede

• I have added the dates for birth and death, as it is slightly strange to have only the year.
• ...founding lieutenant general: Although the context is explained later in the "Early PRC" section, it may not be sufficient at the moment, as I believe Western readers will have difficulty understanding what a founding lieutenant general is (Chinese: 开国中将) unless if we have an article that explains it adequately. Right now we only have the template and Military ranks of China/Ranks of the People's Liberation Army Ground Force, which provides some information, but these pages would probably need to be improved to supplement this article at the current state. My understanding is that the 175 of the founding lieutenant generals appointed in 1955 spreads across all three forces of the People's Liberation Army, and perhaps that could be clarified somewhere.
• I have took the liberty to link the "Lin Biao Incident" subsection and rephrased the sentence so that the reason for Wang's purge is immediately clear.

@Alex Shih: Thanks for the review. I've expanded the article quite a bit more. As for the "founding generals", I'm planning to start an article/list on that, but it'll probably be April or May as I'll be away for a few weeks. -Zanhe (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Sino-Japanese War

• I have changed the two section headings, as I think this will conform to the style guide better.
• It's a shame that I cannot seem to find any English sources for the battle in Guangyang; I suspect this battle also played a role in Wang's subsequent promotions.
• under sustained attacks from... the Kuomintang forces: While there were frequent skirmishes between the Communists and the Kuomintang throughout the war against Japan, in this particular area I believe the sources were referring to attacks from Wang Jingwei regime?
• I think it's better to replace "annihilate" (歼灭, too excessively used particular in Communist historiography I think) with "inflict... casualties" whenever possible, since casualty also includes captured men anyway.
• Isn't Zhang Zhen a chief of staff rather than general at this time? Also, if I am not mistaken, in 1944 Zhang is no longer with the New Fourth Army, but commanding military subdistricts north of the Huai River. Since the booklet was apparently published after Wang returned to the north, I think the current sentence is slightly misleading as if all of these events happened while Wang is in the south. Alex Shih (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Thanks for your edits and insightful comments. The situation in Shandong was particularly complicated. The source says Huxi was attacked by 日、伪、顽, which is Communist jargon for Japan, the Wang Jingwei regime, and the Kuomintang (especially after the New Fourth Army incident). Good point about the word "annihilate"; I was translating too literally from the source. I've clarified the comment by Zhang Zhen. He praised the tactic in his preface to the booklet, which was presumably written before he was deployed to the north. I've also changed "general" (awarded in 1955) to "chief of staff of the Fourth Division" (his position in 1944). -Zanhe (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Chinese Civil War

• This section looks fine. It's strange that there isn't much details about Wang's actual participation during this period.

I believe that's because he was the commander of the 17th Corps, which was closely associated with Lin Biao and disbanded after the Lin Biao incident. As Lin Biao is still a sensitive topic in China, public Chinese sources do not provide many details about the 17th Corps. -Zanhe (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Status query

Alex Shih, Zanhe, where does this review stand? The review's been open for over two and a half months at this point, and there hasn't yet been a post this month. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Sorry, I will try to wrap this up sometime today or tomorrow. Alex Shih (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Re-review

• Zanhe, BlueMoonset, I am sorry for the inexcusable delay. Moving forward, I will re-assess this article again. I had trouble assessing this article initially because the number of references and illustrations for this article is significantly below the standard of expectations for Good Articles to my (limited) understanding, but I suppose when you take the general lack of sources on this subject into consideration, it is fair to say that the current coverage is sufficient.
• I have made some minor changes to the lede; shifted the mention of trench warfare tactic to the previous sentence so that it's more precisely connected to the Second Sino-Japanese War, and also avoids the mention of "and" twice. I have also removed the descriptive term "powerful" from Science and Technology Commission of the National Defense Ministry, as the term is somewhat vague and was not supported by the body paragraph, nor is it supported by the Informal Politics in East Asia source as far as I can see. Other than these minor concerns, I think the rest of the lede looks fine.

Thanks. BTW, the NDSTC controlled China's vast industrial-military complex and was truly powerful. It is in one of the sources I've read, but I don't remember which now. I'm ok for it being left out. -Zanhe (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• There probably isn't that many photographs available that would be made into good use in this article, but I think at the very least one more meaningful illustration is necessary. The Commons only had one other image related to this topic, but I didn't think it was a useful one; is it possible to find one more image?

I've searched around but cannot find another image of him that's reliably dated and unquestionably PD. There's an interesting front page of a newspaper denouncing him during the Cultural Revolution which can be used in the future, once it enters public domain in a few more years. -Zanhe (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• He was dispatched with Feng's army to Jiangxi Province the following year.: This sentence is potentially problematic because, correct me if I am wrong, when the 26th Route Army was dispatched to the Jiangxi Province, I believe at that point they were no longer "Feng's Army" (suggests adding "former" somewhere), but went to Jiangxi under Chiang's orders to participate in the Third Encirclement Campaign against Jiangxi Soviet. The lack of clarity in this previous sentence makes it slightly confusing for less informed readers on who exactly Wang's unit "rebelled" against in the next sentence.

Thanks for pointing that out. The original CPC source obscured all the messy details. I've now added info from other sources to clarify the evolution of the Guominjun to the KMT and then to the Red Army. -Zanhe (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• He served in the Fifth and the First Army Groups: There's probably not enough reliable sources to document the chronology; my understanding is that 26th Route Army was incorporated into the Fifth Group of the First Front in the Chinese Red Army; this makes sense as the list of positions Wang took as described in the People's Diary source implies a series of promotions (from leading the signal corps in the Fifth Group to eventually being part of the chain of command in the First Group). If this part can be improved without running into original research territory, I think that would be great. If not, that would be fine too.

The 26th Route Army became the Red Army's Fifth Army Group, which was originally independent of the First Army Group (but both under the First Front). It was later broken up (owing to the Communist leadership's distrust of the "impure" Guominjun) which is why Wang later served in the First Army Group. However, since Wang was only a junior officer at the time, he had little to do with these machinations and I think the details can be safely left out. -Zanhe (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• The Second-Sino Japanese War section looks fine now I think, thank you for addressing the concerns I have raised. After many years, a significant amount of military formations articles during the Republican China era are still yet to be created/improved and continues to be rather confusing, but this is no fault of this article.
• Moving on to the Chinese Civil War section. For the sake of consistency and flow, it's probably better to describe briefly the first phase of the Chinese Civil War in the earlier sections above, so that the "When the Chinese Civil War resumed..." would make sense here.

I've added a transitional sentence to the beginning of the section, and Auntieruth55 did some further copyediting. -Zanhe (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• During the Korean War, when the Chinese Air Force suffered high casualties in May 1953, Wang was tasked with analyzing and rescuing the situation: I am not sure what's the significance of this sentence. If Wang was the "first-ranked deputy commander of the PLA Air Force" and was in charge of the MiG fighter plane purchases, wouldn't it only be natural for him to be tasked with such roles? I think some background would need to be elaborated per the Zhang source.

I believe it's necessary because that's the only indication that he was involved in the Korean War, which is a less central, but still significant part of his wartime career. -Zanhe (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps it's better to explain what "chops" are and their significance briefly, like how Iris Chang did in the source. I myself had no idea what chops are.

I've added some explanation, and changed the more colloquial word "chop" to the more formal "seal". -Zanhe (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• That's about it from me for now in terms of complete review. Once the concerns are addressed, I will re-read the article and do the GA checklist. Apologies again for the prolonged delay. Alex Shih (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review and apologies for the delays on my end as well. -Zanhe (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

New status query

Zanhe, Alex Shih, it's been three weeks since the above review was completed, but no edits have been made to the article to address them. I realize there was a delay in getting the review completed, but this is an awfully long time to begin work on the necessary edits. Will there be some progress in addressing the concerns raised soon? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset and Alex Shih: Sorry, I had been travelling and away from Wikipedia for three weeks in late May and early June, and have been distracted by other articles I've been working on since coming back. I'll get back to this soon. -Zanhe (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset, Alex Shih, and Zanhe: I've tweaked this based on some of the comments above. Let's finish this! These editors have been patient enough! auntieruth (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

@Auntieruth55: Thanks for your copyedits and checklist. @Alex Shih: I believe I've addressed all the issues you raised above (and have replied directly under each point for clarity). Please let me know if you have more concerns. Thanks! -Zanhe (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Zanhe, if @Alex Shih: doesn't clear this today (Friday 22 June), I'll do it tomorrow. Alex is probably inundated w work, and this is certainly ok for GA. auntieruth (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Checklist

Thank you, Auntieruth55 and Zanhe, for the diligent efforts on this article. Although probably redundant by now, I'll run the checklist again anyway.

1. Well written: The article is well written, and had received copyediting from a number of different editors.
2. Verfiable: The number of citations are relatively low, but it is because there isn't that many sources available. All claims are verifiable, and the Chinese sources have been checked too.
3. Broad in its coverage: Comprehensive enough in coverage without going into extraneous details.
4. Neutrality: The article is written neutrally; this subject will naturally involve the use of CPC sources like People's Diary, but all of the claims are written in a descriptive manner and can all be verified.
5. Stable: Minimal changes to the main content of this article in the last four months.
6. Images: While ideally one more image would certainly enhance the article, at the moment there isn't much other images available that are for certain under public domain. I am passing this article as a Good Article based on the criteria. Thank you again, Alex Shih (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)