Talk:Chinese nationality law/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ex Parte (talk · contribs) 20:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Opening statement

Hi, I'll be beginning the process of reviewing this article fully soon. I've conducted my initial WP:GAFAIL check and found nothing precluding a full review. As such, I'll begin the process of a full review soon. You can refer to my findings from the initial WP:GAFAIL inspection here:

1. The article is clearly not a long way from meeting any of the six good article criteria. If the article isn't already there (and my full review might very well reveal that it is), it's certainly close.
2. The article does not contain any copyright violations. I've conducted a copyvio check and found nothing warranting further examination.
3. The article is not in need of any cleanup banners.
4. There is not any edit-warring taking place on this article.
5. There has been no prior GA review which presents any issues which have been left unresolved.

WP:GAFAIL preliminary review: ✓ Pass

I look forward to conducting the full review for this article and working with the article's contributors on any improvements which might be needed to bring it to GA level. I anticipate a speedy confirmation process. -- ExParte ^talk 20:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Full review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	This article evidently meets all spelling/gramar requirements. The prose is also sufficiently clear and concise. The only aspect of this article which I think could use some improvement (but which is not required at the GA level) would be reducing the repetition of the section heads.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Same advice as above, but once again, not yet necessary at this stage.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	This article is especially well-sourced. The level of sourcing I see here is more akin to something I'd expect to see at the FA level. I'm very impressed.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I conducted the standard copyvio check and nothing stood out to me. As such, I've concluded that there is no copyvio or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	As I mentioned in my initial inspection, there is no indication of any edit-warring on this article.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Great work! I'll add a little more discussion in my closing statement, including possible avenues for future improvement, before I finalize my decision.

Closing statement

I'd like to start by saying congratulations! Bringing an article to GA level is a lot of work, and I commend your accomplishment. If you intend to pursue further elevation, these are some areas you could focus on:

• I'm not a huge fan of the current headings layout. The headings appear a little bit repetitive, with the constant trichotomy of Mainland China, Hong Kong & Macau, and Taiwan. While there's obviously a good reason for breaking it down this way, stylistically it could use a little bit of improvement before it would meet, for instance, FA standards.

But, regardless of what you decide to do moving forward, great work on this!

✓ Pass