This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 01:56, April 16, 2015 (JST, Heisei 27) (Refresh)
I was asked to review this article on March 18, 2012, and here is a summation of my impressions:
The article is a great start. It is written in reasonably good prose. It is well cited, but lacking in URLs, which can be useful for fact-checking.
The "analysis" segment can use some more sources from all countries involved - currently much of the sourcing links to Australian newspapers. It would be great to get the perspective from India, Japan, and China on this issue.
The article can expand on what, if anything, concrete has come out of this 'dialogue' - white papers, joint declarations, military exercises, etc. etc. The results need to be clear.
Try to avoid pipe-linking - since printed versions of the article will not reflect the link. Direct references are better. Prime example is the word 'some' under the "strategic framework" paragraph, which is linked to "Center for a New American Security." Same thing for "some within the American State Department" which links to Morton I. Abramowitz.
The headings can use more succinct (shorter) titles. Also, Rudd's 'departure' and Gillard's 'return' can probably use better titles. "Rudd's departure" sounds like it is referring to the man's downfall in Australian politics instead of its withdrawal from the QSD.
That is all for now. A "B" rating is appropriate. Colipon+(Talk) 20:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I added URLs to references where possible. Some I couldn't find without LexisNexis, and I'm not up that hassle right now. I have not yet started actually reading these sources (though I remember reading the CNAS reports when they were first published), so no substantive comments for now. The one thing I would point out is that a lot of the newspaper sources are opinion articles. That's not problematic per se, but in general I'd like to see the article a little more densely referenced.Homunculus (duihua) 22:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I’ve been asked to review this article. My knowledge of the Quadrilateral Security Dialog is mostly limited to what I’ve read in the article. Much of the article is devoted to opinions on the Dialog, so most of my comments will be addressing how to improve the article within that framework. The article contains lots of detail, and it looks like there’s been a good effort to cover different viewpoints and that they have been presented neutrally.
“Some say” – Avoid this in general - instead write who is saying it. (Collipon made a similar comment.) Also, in most instances in the article, only one person or entity is referenced. If only one person is saying it, use “x says” instead of “some say”. If “some” people (more than one) are saying it, reference more than one person. Similarly mention the National Democratic Alliance (India) by name instead of referring to it as “an early Indian center-right coalition.” If this description of the Alliance is relevant to the article and widely accepted, it can be included as well.
A bigger job would be to give the reader some idea of the notability of the people and organizations giving opinions and the effects the expression of these opinions have had. Are these high level administration members whose opinions are expected to affect policy? Some random nut with a blog? A highly regarded university professor? A think tank whose opinions are commonly used to shape policy?
The analysis section appears to be about opinions within the US on the quadrilateral agreement, and should be incorporated into the rest of the article alongside Indian and Australian opinions. Has there been a similar debate in Japan?
If other countries in the West Pacific (Indonesia, Vietnam, Taiwan, Korea, etc.), have expressed opinions, these should be included as well. Since China is thought to be the target of the agreement, China’s reactions should figure prominently in the article (they are).
I share Colipon’s opinion that expanding on the concrete results of the agreement is a good idea. Since one concrete result has been the expansion of the joint military exercises, they probably deserve their own section in the article. Since they are covered in detail in a separate article, an overview with a link to that article would be appropriate. If there is evidence that sea lane safety has been improved, this would also be good to include.
On to smaller stuff:
There are 2 opinions in the lead that need attribution:
“The arrangement is widely viewed…”. Who views it this way? Alternatively, what expert claimed that it was widely viewed this way?
“Reflecting ambivalence in Australian policy…”. Is it really ambivalence towards US-China tension that was the root? Who thinks so? It might be better to say “Australia left the Quadrilateral from (date) to (date) under Kevin Rudd’s tenure as Prime Minister and returned in (date) when Julia Gillard became Prime minister.” and leave the details for the body.
I see that these are covered in the body of the article, but I’m still uneasy when I see opinions without immediate attribution.
Be consistent in the use of “then” and “former” (then-Vice President, former Prime Minister). Mixing them implies that John Howard was no longer Prime Minister when the dialog was initiated (former President Jimmy Carter has engaged in a lot of diplomacy since he left office). This can be tricky. My preference would be to leave off the thens and formers – if you’ve just mentioned that “the dialogue was initiated in 2007”, it should be clear that you’re talking about the offices they held at that time, and it’s probably not necessary to mention right there that Manhoman Singh is still Prime Minister.
“Unprecedented” is a common peacock word. It might be better to say “The dialog was followed by an increase in scale of the joint military exercises between the four countries.” Also, I’m thinking it’s better to link “joint military exercises” to Exercise Malabar (or mention Exercise Malabar by name in the lead if you can fit it in) and that the link to “military exercise” is not necessary.
Is the American defense industry earning money part of the controversy in India? This might be better mentioned in another section.
Consider enlarging the map thumbnail so that Japan is visibly blue.