Talk:Shifang protest - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GA bot (talk | contribs) at 14:04, 28 January 2013 (Transcluding GA review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:04, 28 January 2013 by GA bot (talk | contribs) (Transcluding GA review)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Shifang protest is currently a Politics and government good article nominee. Nominated by Homunculus (duihua) at 15:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

China B‑class Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Shifang protest appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 July 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the student-led Shifang protest successfully derailed construction of a $1.7 billion copper smelting plant in southwest China?

A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2012/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shifang protest.

Misplaced Pages

GA Review

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Homunculus, I'll be glad to take this review--sorry you've had to wait so long for one. I'll start with a close readthrough in the next day or two, noting any issues I can't immediately fix myself, and then go to the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

This looks quite strong to me on my first pass. I did some minor copyediting as I went for grammar, concision, and per WP:WTA, so please check to make sure I didn't accidentally introduce any errors. The article is well-sourced, and an independent check of Google suggests that the article covers the main points of the event.

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good, and spotchecks of sources show no evidence of copyright issues
	1b. 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:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. 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:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Thanks for the review! With regard to mentioning the role of social media in the lede, it is very briefly alluded to in the sentence "Images and video of the protest circulated on the microblogs and social networking websites throughout China." I could potentially expand on this a bit. Something like "In the absence of news coverage in official media channels, microblogs and social networking websites became a primary means for citizens to disseminate and share information about the protest." Is that what you had in mind, or are you looking for something more substantial about the use of social media and launching of internet memes as a manifestation of subtle political defiance? Homunculus (duihua) 18:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No need--that was just me being sloppy in my re-reading! What you have there is fine. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Categories: