Talk:Ao Man Long/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll be reviewing this article according to the GA criteria. If you have any questions or suggestions during the process, please let me know. --Banime (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial readthrough

In my initial readthrough, I checked for the basic problems. The article contains reliable sources, the topic is not treated in an obviously non-neutral way, and there are no cleanup banners. The article is about a current event, but the event is far enough away to be stable and accurate. Unfortunately it is rated stubclass by one of its wikiprojects. Perhaps someone just did not get to assess it yet though, as happens often. Article seems pretty stable now and there are not any edit wars to speak of. I see no reason for a quick fail, and I will now go much more in depth in my review. --Banime (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Depth review

I'm back with my complete review. I will use the GA Criteria as a guideline for my review to help with making improvements and focusing on what needs fixing. I also made a few of the fixes myself, which you can see by checking the edit history.

Well Written

In general, go through and copyedit the article and work on the writing style. I made a number of fixes myself but do what you can to copyedit and improve the prose of the article, some parts were difficult to read. Many small grammar and spelling mistakes that I had to fix and there are still a lot more!

Can you look at WP:LEAD and work on the introduction a bit more? The introduction is usually the hardest part of an article and I think it seems a little choppy. If you need help I can look at it too.

In the corruption trial section: Ao and his wife earned 14 million patacas from their official posts between 2000 and 2006, yet had accumulated assets totalling 804 million patacas (US$100m), or 57 times their earnings, Ao was charged with having assets not commensurate with his earnings. That sentence is awkward and hard to understand.

The references section: can you improve the format of these references? Check WP:References or if you have questions, ask me.

Factually accurate and verifiability

In the introduction: Ao had allegedly offered preference in government works projects, and had amassed assets totalling 804 million patacas needs a citation, as do all statistics.

The entire career section is unreferenced, can you find citations for specific dates of graduation/jobs?

In the corruption trial section: The trial concluded on 12 December 2007. Needs a citation, like all statistics/specific dates.
I may have mispoke here, I don't believe all dates need to be cited but this was just one that I felt could use it. Sorry for any confusion. --Banime (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the corruption trial section: Ao and his wife earned 14 million patacas from their official posts between 2000 and 2006, yet had accumulated assets totalling 804 million patacas (US$100m), or 57 times their earnings, Ao was charged with having assets not commensurate with his earnings. Needs a citation, like most facts/figures.

Same section: His lawyer was initially Mendonça de Freitas, who was replaced by Nuno Simões. Needs citation.

I'm going to stop here because I cannot copy every instance and say: anything that has a specific figure, such as money, or saying who his lawyer was, or something similar, needs citation. It might be a lot but read WP:REFERENCES for more information. If you have a specific question, please ask.

Broad in its coverage

This article is sufficiently broad for a GA and covers every major aspect about Ao Man-long.

Neutral

The article is written in a seemingly neutral way. I don't think the article violates NPOV, but if others do then consider switching it. I think its fine though.

Stable

The article is stable, and not quite current (several months old and no rapidly emerging information).

Illustrated, if possible, by images

The image is used well and has reasons to be used freely despite being a non-free image, I believe.

Decision

Overall the article was not bad. The main concerns are listed above, most notably the writing and citation concerns. I will put the article on hold for about a week or until these concerns are addressed, then make the final decision. However, I am not sure if this can be improved adequately within the week time limit. If you feel like you cannot finish this within a week, then please tell me. Or if no work is done on it within a few days, I will fail it and you can put it up for nominatino later. Good work and good luck! --Banime (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional things

I saw your changes so far, next time it might be helpful to tell me on the review page although it is not entirely necessary. I have a few more things.

In the Trial section The total amounts deposited in more than a dozen Hong Kong bank accounts under his father's name exceeded HK$157 million as of December 2006. Citation for the 157$ mil?

Anything else you can add to the lead for just a bit of expansion?

I'm not too sure on image policy, is there anywhere you can show me where the non-free rationale is acceptable? When I read living bios it said most non-free images would not be accepted, and I'm not going to promote this if there is any doubt unfortunately. Unfortunately I didn't even know about this until now either, sorry for the lateness.

Still minor copyeditting needed, I've been doing it here and there.

I'll keep it on hold since the image problem was partially my fault for not bringing it up. Let me know if you need help. --Banime (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to beef up the fair use rationale, and I believe it's solid. I could be wrong, but I do not believe there is an absolute insistence on use of GFDL images, and I think the lack of this image would make for a poorer article. As an indication that non-free images used in good articles which qualified before their election: there are Aerith Gainsborough, Pikachu, but some more obvious precedents for such would be Adrian S. Fisher, Ahn Eak-tai, Heather Higgins, Bob Timberlake I will get down to the ce and the lead shortly. Ta, Ohconfucius (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree the lack of the image would make a very poor article. The fair use rationale should hopefully be enough then! Thanks for the work so far. --Banime (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Pass

After all of my concerns above have been met I am pleased to promote this article to GA status. The image I believe is very necessary to the article and has a decent fair use rationale, despite being a nonfree image of a living person. To improve this article, I must stress reading WP:LEAD and trying to improve the lead as that is often one of the hardest parts of any article. Finally, read Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria and get a good peer review before trying for FA. General prose can also use improvement for the next level. Overall, thanks to all editors for their hard work, specifically Ohconfucius. Thanks and good luck in the future. --Banime (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]