Talk:All-China Women's Federation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Plan to revise article[edit]

The existing article is currently rated as a mid-importance article, but is only a stub class article, which means there are several aspects that can be improved.The article does not fully address the history of the federation, discuss the complex relationship between the federation and the Chinese government, examine the ideology and structure of the group, or address the complex challenges facing the federation currently, such as its NGO status. These changes will address the content issues within the article, and I also plan on tackling some of the editorial issues within the article. The article suffers from a lack of academic sources. More sources would address the content issues, and relying on academic sources will make sure the changes are accurate. Some journals I plan on consulting include the International Feminist Journal of Politics, Communist and Post Communist Studies, and World Development. I plan on expanding the introduction, adding sections covering the aspects of the federation I discussed above, and increasing the number of relevant links in the See Also section. This contribution is part of a class for Rice University, so please feel free to give advice or suggestions concerning this article. Shelby McPherson (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It may also be a good idea to look into adding a "criticism" section. I was just browsing around for info on the ACWF when I found this remarkable op-ed: "China’s ‘Leftover’ Women". It's not an academic source, but it's written by a doctoral student and its claims certainly seem to provide a potential area of investigation. TI. Gracchus (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:All-China Women's Federation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 02:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this fantastic article! I will probably be starting on 10/18/14 at around 13:00-16:00 UTC. By the way, I do my review in a prose+source review format with a main review up front. (Here is an example: Talk:Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show)) Brandon (MrWooHoo)Talk to Brandon! 02:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Main Review[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. From a first look, the article is clear and concise. However, a more detailed review will be provided in the prose review,
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Everything complies with the MOS, except maybe the lead. Could you try and make it longer, like this article?
When you take out the references in the lead, please put the following code under this: : Done -signature-

That article has just over 135k bytes. This is at 22,000, meaning the lead should be shorter anyway. Is there anything you think NEEDS to be included in the lead that isn't? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

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. You can take out the references in the lead, those aren't needed. ("Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead," from WP:WHYCITE) Otherwise, the references are good.
When you take out the references in the lead, please put the following code under this: : Done -signature-
 Done --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. In line citations correct, besides the lead references
2c. it contains no original research. Looks good. Everything is referenced.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. From a first look, everything out of scope is covered.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The article does not veer off topic. Good ;)
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The article appears to be neutral, with no POV dominating the article.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No edit wars that I've seen.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. Images are tagged correctly.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images are relevant to the article, and had suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Thanks to Bentvan54321, the article is now passed. Brandon (MrWooHoo)Talk to Brandon! 01:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Prose Review[edit]

Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::, then use YesY or  Done If the change was only partially done use YesY, and N or Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P) To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.

  • History Section

"During the 2nd National Congress in 1922 the CPC issued a statement arguing for the end of Chinese traditions that repress women."

Add comma after the.
Are you sure you didn't mean after 1922? Anyway,  Done. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"In March 1938 at the First Women’s Congress held by the Women’s Federation..."

Add comma after 1938.
 Done. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"During the Cultural Revolution the women’s movement..."

Add comma after the.
 Done. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Organization Section

"The party still does have direct control over some aspects of the ACWF through cadres who work within the federation who may be receiving a government salary..."

Add comma after cadres.
 Done. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Challenges Section
No issues. Good.

@MrWooHoo: Hey Brandon, are these the only outstanding issues? If so, I'd be willing to fix them, but if not, I'd suggest failing the article. Please let me know soon as I've got a lot on my plate and can only commit to this if these minor issues are all that needs to be fixed. I'll also note that I'm probably not the best person to expand the lead as I know absolutely nothing about this topic, but if typos and commas are it, I'll clean it up. Thanks! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bentvfan54321: Hey Bentvfan54321, those are the only issues on the article. Thanks for being a quick nom :) Brandon (MrWooHoo)Talk to Brandon! 01:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Source Review[edit]