Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Shanghai/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Bobbychan193 in topic GA Review

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Bobbychan193 (talk · contribs) 23:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply


Hey there! I'll be reviewing this article over the next few days. Please be patient, and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I've lived in Shanghai for a number of years, so this should be fun. Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Lead

[edit]

Prose

[edit]

Overall reminders and comments

[edit]

Subsections

[edit]

Citations

[edit]
  • Copyright violation status: seems mostly OK.
  • A lot of the citations need updating.
  • Some citations are dead, which is fine if they have archived versions, but ideally, they should be replaced with live citations.
  • {{cite web |url = http://www.zyen.com/PDF/LCGFC.pdf |title = The Competitive Position of London as a Global Financial Centre |access-date = 25 February 2011 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20131110224826/http://www.zyen.com/PDF/LCGFC.pdf |archive-date = 10 November 2013 |url-status=dead |df = dmy-all}} This source is dead, kind of old, and most importantly, does not reflect the statement it was citing. It says Shanghai is "likely" to become a global financial center.
  • Any citations that are PDFs, books, or otherwise long documents should have specific page numbers in the citations because this makes it easier for readers and other editors to verify claims. I.e. fill out the |page= or |pages= parameter
  • This source seems rather useful for expanding the economy section. We should talk about the Port of Shanghai somewhere in the Economy section.
    • Thanks for the source!  Done for mentioning the port. Akira CA (talk)

Discussion

[edit]

Nothing added for over five months

[edit]

Bobbychan193, Akira_CA, this review has not been added to for over five months, and has been open for over ten. That's far too long. I can understand that this is a difficult time, but there are other reviewers out there who could take over, since it's clear that Bobbychan193 simply cannot continue the review. It's past time to start this moving forward again. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm definitely open to someone else taking over the review. If I recall correctly, there's only one section left to review. Bobbychan193 (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
What is that one section? I would want a chance to review that section. -iaspostb□x+ 12:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I just thought it was "Sports" all along! Silly me who gets confused. -iaspostb□x+ 12:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
There's a couple unsourced paragraphs in the Sports section, I'll try to find the necessary references. -iaspostb□x+ 12:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I found all the references I needed for the section. -iaspostb□x+ 12:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Now it's all there and done, so I am now passing this article. -iaspostb□x+ 12:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@I'm Aya Syameimaru!: It was actually the entire Culture section. It's fine that you went ahead and passed it—the article was 95% of the way there anyway—but try to review/improve that section if you have time. Bobbychan193 (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm very sorry, but a 25 minute review is simply not adequate under the circumstances, especially of such a large article. The new reviewer is responsible for the totality of the article as it is now—I can't believe that there was time to read the whole thing, much less consider the entire article against the GA criteria. (For example, the opening does not meet MOS:LEADLENGTH at five paragraphs, and MOS:LEAD is one part of the manual of style that is required in the GA criteria.) I have reverted the approval, and while I appreciate I'm Aya Syameimaru!|'s enthusiasm, under the circumstances, I wonder if a more experienced reviewer would be a better choice here given the length and complexity of the review. We need to get to 100% of the GA criteria, not a less than that. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@BlueMoonset: Thanks for pointing out the lead. A few days ago I looked through all of the article's changes in the past several months to make sure there weren't any dramatic changes that would require a re-review, and that was the one thing I missed. Fixing now. Bobbychan193 (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I'll resume the review now and hopefully wrap it up by today. Bobbychan193 (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@BlueMoonset and Akira CA: I've finished the review. Please {{Ping}} me if I've missed any sections, or if anything else needs to be done. Thanks. Bobbychan193 (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Bobbychan193: I've finished following the comments. Thank you so much for your efforts and patience throughout :D @BlueMoonset: If anything else needs to be done please let us know. -- Akira😼CA 03:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Akira_CA, I don't know of anything else that needs to be done review-wise; right now it's up to Bobbychan193 to decide whether the article meets the GA criteria or if more work is needed on any of the points raised so far (or something new that needs doing catches the eye). BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@BlueMoonset and Akira CA: Thank you both for bearing with me. I'm happy to pass the article now; congratulations Akira, and great work. I hope to see the article nominated for FAC at some point in the future. Bobbychan193 (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
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.
  1. "Per capita | Define Per capita at Dictionary.com". Dictionary.reference.com. Retrieved 4 Feb 2020.