Talk:Zhemao hoaxes

Zhemao hoaxes has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 11, 2022	Good article nominee	Listed
August 13, 2023	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

Wikipedia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reliability

This article is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability articles

Alternate History (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternate History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Alternate HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Alternate HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Alternate HistoryAlternate History articles

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zhemao hoaxes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ThadeusOfNazereth (talk · contribs) 16:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will be starting my review soon. Please note this is my first review so additional comments are more than welcome. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 16:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review template

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
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:
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This is an easy pass for me. The article is well-written and engaging, but doesn't overstay by delving into any WP:OR territory as is common with articles focusing on inter-Wiki controversies. The images are good and contribute to the article as a whole, as does the quote box. Overall, fantastic job! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 17:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Should we have more external links here, such as Wikipedia:Fabricated articles and hoaxes of Russia in 2022? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 05:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think that page, as an external link, added much value for a general reader. I'd sooner link its equivalent zhwiki page, which is more detailed, but honestly both versions seem like inside baseball to be a useful resource for our audience. czar 07:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yifan (Chinese: 伊凡; pinyin: Yīfán) - male or female?

Some Polish soruces describe Yifan as a she, this one calls her "Nancy Yi Fan". We cite Vice, where Yifan is called a "he". Who is correct? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources in the article (which I found to be the best sources on the subject) use the male pronoun for Yifan, including the Chinese Sixth Tone, so it would need a strong source to say they're all wrong. czar 15:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Yifan's account on the web novel website, marked as male. BlackShadowG (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

伊凡 (Yifan) might come from the Slavic male name Иван (Ivan). --Lopullinen 06:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A useful Chinese source

Weng, Rongrong; Liu, Yuanyuan (September 3, 2022). Li, Muyan (ed.). "谁在编造古俄罗斯历史？" [Who is falsifying Russian history?]. Southern Weekly (in Chinese).

This Chinese source is more comprehensive. BlackShadowG (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything major behind the paywall that the article is missing? Above the fold, we're already covering everything in this article. czar 14:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Zhemao hoaxes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fails criteria 2.

only supported by four references (the fifth is used to support one sentence), which is already an issue.

the literary hub source appears to be based on the sixth tone source, and the engadget source appears to be based on the vice source. ltbdl (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ltbdl I'm confused. Criteria 2 is Verifiable with no original research. What part of the article is not verifiable? You appear to be making an argument about notability, which is something else. The place for that kind of discussion is WP:AFD. I would warn you that I do not believe this will fail an AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's not a question of notability. pretty sure just having 4 refs is a problem for being a good article, or am i wrong? ltbdl (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no "number of sources" requirement. See the GA criteria and I recommend asking questions before opening a reassessment next time. czar 03:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

my apologies. i withdraw this reassessment. ltbdl (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Original GA reviewer here) - I am busy with a cross-country move and don't particularly have time to participate in a process past this comment, but I don't understand the concern here. The article is supported by five references and there's no "number of sources" requirement past the three we expect for notability. Some of the references linking to other references isn't a disqualifying factor, it's basic journalistic ethics. The sources used describe an event, so naturally they'll cover the same ground. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 19:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.