Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/China/1

China

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted, identified issues have not been resolved after more than 2 weeks (t · c) buidhe 03:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While it may once have been in the GA class it no longer meets those standards, the biggest issue is the dozens of instances of unsourced text. Needs serious work to get back to GA status, at the moment its probably a C. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The article has a huge 84 kB of prose, far above what it should be.
The significant number of citations present only in the lead is concerning, suggesting that the lead was not written as a summary of the rest of the article as it should per WP:LEAD.
The article puts a great deal of emphasis on the Xia dynasty, despite there being no certainty that it really existed. The lead even includes it as an uncontested fact.
The infobox includes a whole slew of Government positions, the majority of which are minor enough to not even get a mention in the article.
There are a number of short paragraphs and short sections scattered throughout the article.
There's a few questionable sources, I doubt they've all been tagged.
The images could use some pruning and organisation, although this is not required for GA.

CMD (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding size, according to WP:TOOBIG, 84kb is within the Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material) category, and there's no question that the world's largest country is an exceptionally big topic. So I'd say reducing the size ought to be on our minds when editing the page, but I'm not sure the current size is an argument for delisting. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is already divided, with a main page in place for every level2 section except Infrastructure. WP:Summary style actually notes 40kB to be the point at which extra material needs to be justified, while WP:Article Size recommends beginning to shift stuff at 50kB. CMD (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with some of the other more specific concerns like all the titles in the infobox. Many of those should be pretty easy to address (e.g. just delete the lesser titles or collapse them with {{Collapsed infobox section top}}). Having a page this important as a GA is quite an accomplishment and I hope we don't have to end up delisting. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]