Talk:Shanghai/GA2
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Bobbychan193 (talk · contribs) 23:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
Lead
[edit]Prose
![]() |
---|
|
Infobox
![]() |
---|
|
Prose
[edit]Overall reminders and comments
[edit]- Make sure there aren't any duplicate Wikilinks throughout the body of the article; see MOS:LINK (and specifically MOS:DL)
Done But there is a whole section on Shanghai FTZ, and the link to the FTZ has appeared earlier. Shall I still delete the link in this case? Akira CA (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- For these kinds of situations, what you can do is use the {{main}} template, then delete duplicate links.
- Great idea,
Done Akira CA (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Great idea,
- For these kinds of situations, what you can do is use the {{main}} template, then delete duplicate links.
- Use American English (per the article's talk page)
- "10 meters (33 feet) high and 5 kilometers (3 miles)" abbreviate all units in parentheses (i.e. imperial units). Also abbreviate things like "square kilometers"
- Try to be consistent throughout the article (i.e. "Old City", "mainland China", serial comma, etc.)
- Gotcha Akira CA (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- There's only a few citations left in the lead. Some of the information that they're citing isn't repeated in the body of the article. We should make sure we do that, then move the citations down. Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Done for now Bobbychan193 (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you have time, add alternative text to all of the images
- We should expand the Economy section. For starters, we should add a section titled "Foreign trade and investment" that includes exports, imports, foreign investment, etc.
Subsections
[edit]Etymology
![]() |
---|
|
History
![]() | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Geography
![]() | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Politics
![]() | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Economy
![]() | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Demographics
![]() | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Education
![]() |
---|
|
Transportation
![]() | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Culture
![]() |
---|
|
Environment
![]() | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Media / International relations
![]() |
---|
|
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.- Aha, you changed it before I found the same source as yours. Akira CA (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
Discussion
[edit]- @Akira CA: I've begun reviewing the article. Since it's quite long, we can both take our time reviewing and improving the article, respectively. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Bobbychan193 (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Bobbychan193: Got it. I've just fixed the dmy and the AM English issues, please let me know if I missed anything. Akira CA (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Akira CA: Glad to see you're still active. I'll continue the review sometime later today or tomorrow. In the meantime, can you try to address the citations in the lead? Also, try to use the {{done}} template under each feedback bulletpoint to let me know your status. Bobbychan193 (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Bobbychan193: Got it. I've just fixed the dmy and the AM English issues, please let me know if I missed anything. Akira CA (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Can you briefly explain what you did in this edit? In the future, try to have edit summaries to tell other editors what you changed. Bobbychan193 (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oof, sorry for that. I moved some citations from the lead to the body, and deleted overly detailed information (since it's the lead). Akira CA (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ideally, every single claim in the article should be cited (with at least one reliable source), but for the purposes of this GAN, I'd be happy to pass this article if I feel that it's most of the way there. (I.e. most things are cited, and you address all of my comments to make improvements to the prose.) So, don't stress out too much about this. (If you're planning to take this to FAC in the future, which I highly encourage you to do, then it will be a lot more important.) Bobbychan193 (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Got it. Akira CA (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Akira CA: I've finished reviewing several large sections that might take you a few days to work through. Just {{ping}} me when you're done or almost done with everything, and I'll continue reviewing. Also, given the length of the article, I probably won't be doing a second review or a detailed review of your changes. I trust your editing. As always, let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Bobbychan193 (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Bobbychan193: Thanks for the hard works! I'm busy these days, but will inform you when I'm done with all these suggestions. Akira CA (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Bobbychan193: Could you please tell me the difference between the {{Further}} template and the {{See also}} one? I saw both of them being used in the article. Akira CA (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Akira CA: From my understanding, {{further}} is for any article(s) providing further information on a topic. {{See also}} is for linking any article(s) related to (but not necessarily expanding upon) a topic. See the two template pages I linked for more information. Bobbychan193 (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Since I have some free time right now (and probably won't have much free time again until next Wednesday), I'll be continuing the review. Great work so far; keep it up. Bobbychan193 (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- Understood :3 Akira CA (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Akira CA: I've simplified the wiki-syntax for the notes. Use the template I used going forward. See WP:EXPLNOTE and {{efn}} for more information. Bobbychan193 (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- @The Account 1: Hey, I've noticed that you've made some improvements to the article. Any help is definitely appreciated. Are you an alt-account of Akira CA? Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Bobbychan193: I'm not. I just saw this article is currently nominated for Good Article status so I decided that I can help in this process. The Account 1 (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- @The Account 1: Sounds good, and I figured as much. Thanks for your help. I will continue the review later today. Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- @The Account 1 and Bobbychan193: Thank you both! I'm a little bit busy these days because my exam is coming, but will continue improving the article as soon as I have leisures. Akira CA (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Akira CA: No worries, take your time. Good luck on your exam. Bobbychan193 (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Bobbychan193: I'm not. I just saw this article is currently nominated for Good Article status so I decided that I can help in this process. The Account 1 (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Akira CA: Just a reminder that there's one last unresolved suggestion in the Religion subsection. I'm going to be busy for the next two or three days, but I'll try to resume the review sometime next week. If you want to get a head start in copy editing, adding citations, and refining the prose in the unreviewed sections, go for it :) Bobbychan193 (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Resolved, thanks for the work done so far :D Akira CA (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Josephua: Hey, I saw you made some improvements to the article; it's much appreciated. If you have time, feel free to go through this GA review and the article's history to get a feel for the kinds of improvements that have already been made. You'll notice that there are certain recurring things, like American spelling, serial commas, and {{as of}} and {{convert}} templates. Consistency throughout the article is key. Let me know if you have any questions. Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Bobbychan193: I can take care of the grammar errors in the article. I was hoping when this article passes GA status, that it could be a base model for Shenzhen, which I am working on currently. - Josephua (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Josephua: Sounds good; best of luck with that article. A lot of the China-related articles are in pretty poor shape, so any help is much appreciated. Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Bobbychan193: Will do. - Josephua (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Josephua: Sounds good; best of luck with that article. A lot of the China-related articles are in pretty poor shape, so any help is much appreciated. Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Bobbychan193: I can take care of the grammar errors in the article. I was hoping when this article passes GA status, that it could be a base model for Shenzhen, which I am working on currently. - Josephua (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Bobbychan193: The source [187] for "The system is operated by multiple companies" under public transportation is a permanent dead link. - Josephua (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Good catch. @Akira CA: can you see if you can find another source? Bobbychan193 (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Akira CA: There is a citation needed template in the lead of the Culture section, which can be off-putting for GA reviewers. - Josephua (聊天) 17:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Josephua: Thank you. I've already noticed that, but haven't found any useful sources yet. Since I'm busy these days I'll deal with it in the next couple of weeks :) Akira CA (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Take your time. There are several unresolved comments as well, and I'll resume the review once you finish them. Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Josephua: Thank you. I've already noticed that, but haven't found any useful sources yet. Since I'm busy these days I'll deal with it in the next couple of weeks :) Akira CA (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Akira CA: So I've just finished another round of comments; take your time. Seeing as this review has been continuing for almost two months now, I'll try to wrap things up. I'll be mostly focusing on the prose/MOS, as well as big, glaring issues like neutrality or original research. Everything else will be eventually be caught at the FAC level anyway. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Bobbychan193 (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Akira CA and Bobbychan193: I'm putting "not done" templates to help you guys identify which comments are not done. It makes it easier for these comments to be assessed. If these comments are re-assessed, feel free to change it to the "done" template and end it with your signature. ;) - 祝好,Josephua (聊天) 22:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Bobbychan193: Since the review has not been touched for a month already, I think it is time to start reviewing the Shanghai Culture section the way that it is right now. The review has been going on a bit too long already without a response. - 祝好,Josephua(聊天) 16:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm currently pretty busy with IRL stuff; will continue the review when I get a chance. @Akira CA: Do you have time to work on the Culture section? Bobbychan193 (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- OK. You can skip to the last few sections (Environment, Media, etc) while I'm working on it. Akira CA (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm currently pretty busy with IRL stuff; will continue the review when I get a chance. @Akira CA: Do you have time to work on the Culture section? Bobbychan193 (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- @The Account 1: If you have time, can you do the parks and resorts section? Thanks. - 祝好,Josephua(聊天) 21:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Bobbychan193: Parks and resorts are done, courtesy of @The Account 1:. Can you start 'Environmental protection' and 'Media / International relations?' I think it would be better if you reviewed both sections instead of one at a time. Thanks. - 祝好,Josephua(聊天) 21:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'll review those sections when I have time. Bobbychan193 (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Bobbychan193: Reminding you 'environmental protection' is done, courtesy of @Akira CA:, so you can start 'Media / International relations' when you have time. - 祝好,Josephua(聊天) 04:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Akira CA and The Account 1: You can start 'Media / International relations' now. - 祝好,Josephua(聊天) 17:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Bobbychan193: Hi! I think we can finally set a start on the culture section, sorry for having kept you waiting so long. Akira CA (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- No problem. I will review it when I find the time. Bobbychan193 (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry for taking so long. Currently don't have a whole lot of free time due to the coronavirus pandemic. Bobbychan193 (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- that's ok, take your time, be safe! :) -- Akira😼CA 04:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry for taking so long. Currently don't have a whole lot of free time due to the coronavirus pandemic. Bobbychan193 (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- No problem. I will review it when I find the time. Bobbychan193 (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Akira CA: I've found a bit more free time recently; excited to resume the review and finally get this article passed. However, it's going to take me a few days to go through all the edits people have made in the past few months. Bobbychan193 (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Bobbychan193: Glad to hear that. I'm still on so if you have free time just review it. I'll follow your comments when I'm free :D -- Akira😼CA 03:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, just a little bit of an update: free time is scarce once again, and I'll try to resume the review when I'm less busy. Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Bobbychan193: Sure, take your time! If you have free time, just review it don't wait for me, since our free time may not match :D I will catch up when I'm free. -- Akira😼CA 05:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, just a little bit of an update: free time is scarce once again, and I'll try to resume the review when I'm less busy. Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Bobbychan193: Glad to hear that. I'm still on so if you have free time just review it. I'll follow your comments when I'm free :D -- Akira😼CA 03:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- What is that one section? I would want a chance to review that section. -iaspostb□x+ 12:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, I just thought it was "Sports" all along! Silly me who gets confused. -iaspostb□x+ 12:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- I found all the references I needed for the section. -iaspostb□x+ 12:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Now it's all there and done, so I am now passing this article. -iaspostb□x+ 12:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- Now it's all there and done, so I am now passing this article. -iaspostb□x+ 12:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- I found all the references I needed for the section. -iaspostb□x+ 12:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oh, I just thought it was "Sports" all along! Silly me who gets confused. -iaspostb□x+ 12:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- What is that one section? I would want a chance to review that section. -iaspostb□x+ 12:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- @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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
Good Article review progress box
|
- ^ "Per capita | Define Per capita at Dictionary.com". Dictionary.reference.com. Retrieved 4 Feb 2020.