Talk:Luo Shifang

GA review

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.

---

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

Nominator: Arconning (talk · contribs) 12:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chickenpox4dinner (talk · contribs) 16:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I am happy to be doing this review, I anticipate the first pass will be done within the next day or so. I am not familiar with the sports side of Wikipedia, so I will be trying to do things by the book for this review - feel free to send any community advice my way! chickenpox4dinner (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, 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:

   Clean infobox to boot.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   The article reference list is super clean, I appreciate the publishers being hyperlinked for every source.

   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):

   WP:TSI is great, no issues determining provenance of claims. I went through all of the references, everything checked out.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Article maintains strict matter-of-fact tone and clear text-source integrity.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig pass.

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):

   Any asides, e.g. the 'entertaining the crowd' tidbit, are brief and directly sourced.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Encyclopedic style is nailed, no issues.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No stability issues.

6. 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:

   Given this is WP:BLP, I think no images is fine; nothing on Commons nor Flickr.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I came into this believing the GA review process should always include some amount of refinement of the article, but as it stands, this article is GA material already. Well done, @Arconning: passed! — chickenpox4dinner (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

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.