Wikipedia:Featured article review/People's Republic of China/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 08:29, 15 March 2007.

[edit] People's Republic of China

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Jiang, Countries, and China. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This article has become a political battleground, filled with excessive detail and arguments for and against various opinions, usually without reference to verified sources.

There are many peacock and weasel words.

It is poorly written, lacking focus with many digressions and awkward phrases attached to sentences they are not relevant to,

The lead is a disaster, does not in any way summarize the article.

--Ideogram 07:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, huge degeneration since the last time I read this article. Parts have been savagely cut, and others massively bloated. References are not all reliable and are in several formats; what has and hasn't been used as a reference is confusing too given the odd overviews and documentaries inclusions. Other issues with article layout - this one deviates quite a bit from the structure used on other featured countries. --Peta 00:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • User Ideogram made many drastic cuts some which I restored. See here [1] prior to his edit. Some of his edits were for the better; I left them untouched. He seems to have a problem with "China is an emerging superpower", which he considrs wastrel and peacock. Mandel 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever you like to the article. If you can save FA status more power to you. --Ideogram 18:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: There appears to only be one real edit disagreement over the article at the moment (over the wording that "China is an emerging superpower"), so I wonder if this might be a case where it's better to just do a massive revert back to the featured version. — Brian (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• The article was featured three years ago; nothing has changed in China in 3 years? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• A simple, "No, the article was featured three years ago" would have sufficed. Of course things have changed. I didn't realize this was such an old FA. — Brian (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, Brian—I guess my attempt at humor was missed :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: If I recall correctly, the article was up for review last year, and underwent some massive changes, and subsequently kept. Perhaps a revert to that version? --Sumple (Talk) 04:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't find any indication of it on the talk page. If true, though, that would be a place to start, allowing for changes in China over the past year, of course. — Brian (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The previous FARC—and the version—is in the ArticleHistory at the top of the talk page. This is the version at the end of the previous FARC; if you revert to that, the article will need, at least:
      • better citing
      • External link cleanup
      • expanded references
      • correct placement of Seealso templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A problem with this article is heavy vandalism. See Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection. I've asked for this article to be semi-protected. Actually I fail to find peacock or wastrel terms here. Mandel 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• A cursory look at 2006; it actually looks better now than then. It's lighter and I agree, the phrasing is somewhat tedious then. Maybe something could be restored though. Mandel 18:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The article seems fine. Some sections are a little bit long, but nothing too extreme. The History and Foreign Affairs sections need more citation though (although a lot are indeed common knowledge for China-followers). Otherwise, I really don't see much difference between the article now and Spring 2006 when it was last FA reviewed and passed. It's a pretty decent article for a controversial and politically fueled topic. The lead looks quite okay (perhaps it has been changed since Ideogram first commented above). Any attempt at FARC for this article at its current state would receive a Strong Oppose from me. --Naus 05:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The references need extensive work; they're all over the map. There are mixed reference styles, incomplete URL links, and no consistent style. It's not clear if sources listed as References actually belong in External links or Further reading, or are already used in Notes. Many sources are missing full information. It may be helpful to use the cite templates to achieve a consistent, complete reference style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, work on references has not been completed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose quality (1a), weasel words (1d), and LEAD (2a). Marskell 18:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You guys can bash China all you want. I remember the Potential Superpowers article was deleted, and it was wonderfully written with great effort. Once an article has been nominated for deletion and failed, it should never be deleted because of Double Jeopardy.

Um, this is not a vote to decide whether or not to remove it from Wikipedia entirely.

• Remove per 1a, 1d and 2a. LuciferMorgan 00:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove, goodness, several weeks have elapsed, and no one appears to have touched the footnotes or even attempted to correct the blue-linked URL's and incomplete refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove, Repeated concerns have been expressed regarding the POV maps used in the article, to no effect. As a first step towards retaining FA status, such easily resolvable issues should be dealt with. deeptrivia (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.