Talk:2010 Nobel Peace Prize/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sayantan m (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the article.--Sayantan m (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Check Against GA criteria

I'll finish the check completely in next few days. Meanwhile editors please try to resolve the problems I'm stating. It'll help save our time.--Sayantan m (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; 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. 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) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

3. 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. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Review and comments

Phase 1

• Section 1 : "The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel..." It's already in a quotation template. Another quotation mark is not necessary.
• Section 2 : This is too long and unorganized. I suggest to make two subsections under it instead of eleven: "Initial reaction inside China" and "Initial reaction outside China".
• Section 2.4 : Ai said that the Prize was a message from the international community, urging that the Chinese government respect mankind's universal values, notwithstanding its economic performance. This sentence doesn't make any sense. Most probably it will be: ... Chinese government to respect mankind's universal values,....
• Section 2.4 : Mao believed that political reform was inevitable and that leaders were already debating how and what form this should take. Try something simpler.
• Section 2.5 : Give a link on Chatroom. There's an article on this topic.
• Section 2.8 : Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten revealed that foreign minister Støre had had a pre-emptive meeting with Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjørn Jagland, ... One had is sufficient in this case without making any grammatical mistake and spoiling the flavour of the sentence.
• Section 2.9.1 : The United Arab Emirates expressed regret at the award being given to Liu and considered it to be politicallly motivated. Check spelling
• Section 2.9.2 : Professor Sidney Rittenberg of Pacific Lutheran University, WA, said... There're articles on both Sidney Rittenberg, Pacific Lutheran University. Use the links. Please don't use abbreviations like WA, these may cause confusion to some readers. Instead use Washington.
• Section 4 : Norwegian actress Liv Ullmann then took to the podium and read I Have No Enemies, an essay by Liu written for his trial in December 2009. Why not just : Norwegian actress Liv Ullmann read I Have No Enemies,...?
• Section 4 : There are repeated links for Carl von Ossietzky and Aung San Suu Kyi. The links both appeared in the lead. Try to remove all other repeated links.
• The file Outside LXB by McKinnon.jpg does not exist. Please remove the image.
• The end of the article looks a bit congested. I think the file Chatergardenlight 2010 nobelprize.jpg should be moved to some other section. Because in section 4 it serves no particular purpose.
• Section 2.10 : The left-leaning French daily... I don't know but is this newspaper officially a left-leaning newspaper? If yes then only use the words. This may harm the neutrality of the comment. Though this is a very minor issue.
• Section 2.11 : I don't see the purpose this section serves to the article. The facts can be merged elsewhere.
• Section 5 : If possible try to add more details.

• Above all done. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Y--Sayantan m (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Phase 2

Sec 3.1

Y

Sec 3.2

• "While the Cuban and Venezuelan governments were notably critical, leading politicians in the Western world welcomed the news, and called for the release of Liu; non-aligned and developing countries such as Brazil and Russia were conspicuously silent." Divide the sentence in two: "While the Cuban and Venezuelan governments were notably critical, leading politicians in the Western world welcomed the news, and called for the release of Liu." and "Non-aligned and developing countries such as Brazil and Russia were conspicuously silent." It sounds better.

• Add India also to the list of Brazil and Russia according as ref #83.

• "France, Germany, the UK joined in, calling on ..." Why not only UK?

• ref #90 "In comments made on Thursday, Kan said it would be "desirable" for China to free Liu but stopped short of making an explicit call for his release." This is what the original ref text says. There's no explicit statement mentioning him saying: "desirable for him to be released" . Don't use this. Instead use a narrative statement.

Sec 3.3

• In paragraph #1 it is already said that Mario Vargas Llosa voiced support for the Nobel committee's decision. Whereas the next paragraph says, "In contrast, Mario Vargas Llosa, the winner of the 2010 Nobel Prize in Literature, criticized their views and expressed support for Liu." Isn't that too obvious? When Llosa supported the decision he would surely criticize its opposition. This is introducing a repetition. I suggest make the first two paragraph like this:

The Dalai Lama said he had been moved and encouraged by the efforts of Liu and others calling for democracy and freedom in China. He praised the award as "the international community's recognition of the increasing voices among the Chinese people in pushing China towards political, legal and constitutional reforms." Former Polish president Lech Wałęsa said he was "very satisfied", describing the award as "a challenge for China and the entire world, [which] must declare whether it is ready to help China enter a zone where there is respect for the principles and values".
However, Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov, winners of the 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics, criticized the selection of Liu, referring to the Nobel committee as "retired Norwegian politicians who have spent all their careers in a safe environment, in an oil-rich modern country. They try to extend their views of the world, how the world should work and how democracy works in another country." They also stated that human rights and the economy of China has improved 10 years, and that Western criticism against China is misplaced. In contrast, Mario Vargas Llosa, the winner of the 2010 Nobel Prize in Literature, criticized their views saying it was a timely reminder that China was still a dictatorship and quite monolithic regarding politics, and that the award was "a tribute to all Chinese dissidents and all Chinese who want, not just economic, but also political growth and progress in China."

This avoids the aforementioned problem. But you can do it any way you want.

• ref #103, #104 The references does not have the corresponding quotations : "honors all those in China who struggle daily to make the government more accountable" and "shatter[s] the myth where the Communist Party presents itself as the voice of the Chinese people".

• Human Rights Watch, Salil Shetty, Amnesty International and China Europe International Business School have pages here on Wikipedia. Use them.

• ref #105 I think, this link is not taking me where it is supposed to.

Sec 3.4

Y

Sec 4

• ref #116 One diplomat said his embassy's letter from the Chinese embassy requested obliquely that they "refrain from attending any activity directed against China." I couldn't find the quote anywhere in the corresponding reference.

• ref #117, #118 In the ref #118 (i.e. the BBC News) there's no mention of the quote "more than 100 countries and international organizations ...." It is the source for only "interference by a few clowns". Therefore do not use ref #117and #118 at a time. For the first one use #117 (from which you've gathered the quote I suppose) and for the later one use #118.

• This section already mentioned the fact that India decided to attend the Nobel ceremony (para 2). I think, therefore, it is unnecessary to add the sentence "On 8 December 2010. India snubbed the negative reaction of China against Liu Xiaobo being given the Nobel Peace Prize. It even called this issue to not be considered bilateral and it should not affect Sino-Indian relations." This one-sentence paragraph is making the whole section a little "loose". If you want to add this info anyway then it's better to merge it up with the previous paragraph or maybe to some other suitable place.

Sec 5

• "The award ceremony" is not supposed to contain any detail of the attending and non-attending countries. That was the job of sec 4. I suggest move the first paragraph to sec 4 and open the sec 5 with the lines "The award ceremony, held as planned in Oslo City Hall in the afternoon of 10 December,...."

• All above (phase 2) done. I would just add as a note that some of the cited articles appear to have been changed, thus causing interrupts in quotes and other information. I have now replaced with other [unaltered] sources I found which have the original quotes as used in the article. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Y--Sayantan m (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Phase 3

Lead

Y

Sec 1

• ref #20 (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2010/) This is not a proper link for the quoted text. Use this: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2010/press.html

Sec 2.1

Y

Sec 2.2

• If possible add the names of Norway's negotiator and the director of international relations at the "BI Norwegian School of Management."

Sec 2.3

• "Charter08" (para #4) Give a space in between. And since it is a name of a manifesto, distinguish the name throughout the article by using quotations or by using italics.

Sec 2.4

Y

Sec 2.5

• Renmin University. Use link.

Sec 2.6

Y

Sec 2.7

Y

Sec 2.8

• Taipei Times. Use link.

Overall

I read the article this morning and I gotta admit it looks, um, strong. Surely, it was a well-researched and well-cared piece of work from the start. And editors have done a lot to keep up its good standard and is doing. I faced some problems in the review process since this is my first GA review. Nevertheless, I managed to do it at last. I want to thank Ohconfucius for his co-operation during the review. Good luck for further improvements and happy new year to all editors.--Sayantan m 03:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Had I been the reviewer, I would have been tempted to make some of the necessary changes myself for reasons of expediency, but I'm thankful Sayantan took the effort and the time to detail all the points, thus allowing me to learn from this approach. Above all, thanks to for braving the world of GA reviews – all the best in your future efforts. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)