Talk:Yuancheng Group

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China Low‑importance

	China portal 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

More sources[edit]

The Atlantic source [1] also states that there are two more Chinese language sources in Changjiang Daily and Wuhan Morning News. It would be great if a Chinese editor could find those. If you can find them, you can ping me and I will add if you prefer. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources[edit]

The majority of the article looks ok, but it currently also cites NY Post and an opinion piece. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Hi you tagged the article because one source you question as unreliable? Normally you would tag one source, so I removed the tag. Is an opinion source and NYPost deemed unreliable on a company stub? The content is certainly not promotional ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf, two different sources: the NYPost, which is generally unreliable, and an opinion piece in the LA Times [2]. Admittedly, NYPost's status is in the process of being established, but the consensus in the ongoing discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC:_New_York_Post_(nypost.com) seems to be towards unreliability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: ya, i see your point now. The opinion piece is written by the guy who wrote the book on this company so it seems ok to me. We dont have to meet any BLP standards here and this is CORPSTUB. That was my logic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a BLP, but the claims in the article are potentially contentious. I think that the opinion piece is ok for now given the author's presumed expertise (although the article is perhaps overly reliant on sources that they authored). I'll mark the NYPost cite with an inline-tag. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]