Talk:Shanghainese people in Hong Kong/GA1
Latest comment: 3 years ago by ArnabSaha in topic GA Review
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)
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:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- 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:
- 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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- 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)