Talk:Chen Qiushi/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Newtack101 (talk · contribs) 18:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Beginning this review now. Stay tuned. Newtack101 (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This article is well-written and I think it can make it to GA with a few additions

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Early life is stubby and should be fleshed out if possible. See comments below for other issues

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   His whereabouts are unknown, but only one hypothesis is given from anything other than second-hand sources. Surely there is at least one alternative explanation given by a notable source, however unlikely that explanation may be.

I'm not sure what you mean by second-hand sources in this context. The WP:RS quote the Chinese government stating that he was detained for quarantine, and quote other parties assessing his detainment may have been due to his "citizen journalism" activities. I just did a search for "why was chen qiushi detained" and didn't find a third explanation, at least not on the first page. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The article appears not to be involved in an edit war and has been consistent with its presentation of a currently unfolding event

2. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I'm not an expert on image licensing but this appears to be okay according to my limited understanding

3. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Childhood and education

• Is there nothing else that can be included in this section? Family background, what sort of lawyer, origin of activism, etc. would all be welcome.

Nothing in the english-language RS that I can access, no. I searched just now for "Heilongjiang chen qiushi" on the grounds that a bio would include his university, but didn't find anything new. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I guess it is what it is, then Newtack101 (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Journalism Hong Kong Protests

• "Days after the videos' release, he was detained by Beijing authorities, who deleted his Sina Weibo account and videos" -- I would make clear when the authorities released him after his detainment.

I elaborated based on the sources, there appear to be no english RS on it other than the quoted SCMP, based on a Google News search narrowed to the year 2019. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19

• 430,00 youtube subscribers --> source says 433,000. Minor difference but in an article this short, may as well be precise.

• "Chen's reporting contrasted with Caixin and Sanlian Lifeweek, which have "lines they cannot cross", and contrasted even more strongly with the "official line" of state-controlled media" --> This seems to imply that Caixin and Sanlian Lifeweek have strayed from the "official line" at least somewhat, as Chen's reporting does not contrast as much with these sources as it does the government's. It would be helpful to know the extent to which their reporting has differed from the official line, and what the official line of the state controlled media was at that time.

This is SCMP's opinion, which they don't elaborate further on in the sourced article. It can be removed if desired, SCMP isn't an impartial source in the first place. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

What about something like, "According to SCMP, Chen's reporting was more critical of the Chinese government than other critical news sources, which have "lines they cannot cross"...." ?

Feb 20 disappearance

• "On 7 February, family and friends received news from authorities that Chen had been detained at an undeclared time and place and held in an unknown location. The authorities claimed that the reason for the detention was quarantine." --> I think this needs to specify who is the direct source of this information. It appears it is either his friend or his mother. If the authorities have made any known statements about Chen's disappearance, source that. Otherwise, make it clear that the information is second-hand.

That is... an excellent point, fixed. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Amnesty International's Patrick Poon said around 14 February 2020. . . " I think this sentence needs to be cited because it includes a direct quote.

I don't understand, isn't it already cited along with the following sentences to ? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I am fairly certain I have read in the MOS that any sentences containing direct quotes need to have citations at the end of the sentence, even if the following sentences rely on the same citation. Although I'm now struggling to find where I read that. Do you mind just citing the sentence in question to be safe? Better to over-cite than under-cite.

• Has the Chinese government issued any statements on any of the referenced controversies above, specifically related to missing persons, that can be included for balance? Also, have any major or credible news sourced offered alternative explanations for Chen's disappearance? I think these would all have a place in this article.

There does not appear to be any official response, nor have any alternative explanations been reported on by the English RS that I'm aware of. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Given the news of Li's resurfacing, I think this sentence "Republican lawmakers in the U.S. have called for an inquiry..." should now read, "Republican lawmakers in the U.S. called for an inquiry..." I also think it should be mentioned that Li states he was quarantined during his disappearance. Newtack101 (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Rereading the lead, I think these couple of sentences are still a bit problematic: "He was last heard from on 6 February 2020 after being detained by the Chinese government. The government has allegedly stated Chen was detained for the purpose of coronavirus quarantine; critics, including media freedom groups, have expressed skepticism, and have unsuccessfully called on the government to allow outside contact with Chen." I'd recommend something like, "He was last heard from on 6 February, 2020, and his whereabouts are currently unknown. Chen's friends and family allege that the Chinese government informed them he has been detained for the purpose of quarantine. Critics, including media freedom groups...." Newtack101 (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Detainment for legitimate quarantine is still technically a form of detainment, I can see how it would be unclear. How about this: "He was last heard from on 6 February 2020; as of May 2020, his whereabouts remain unknown. The Chinese government reportedly informed Chen's family and friends that he has been detained for the purpose of COVID-19 quarantine. Critics, including media freedom groups, have expressed skepticism about government motives, and have unsuccessfully called on the government to allow outside contact with Chen." Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

References

@Newtack101 Your latest round of suggestions sound good to me, how do I find out who requested the GA review in the first place? I'd like to ping him/her for opinion on the changes as well. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson, you can find that info on the good article nomination page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations). Mariogoods was the nominator. Mariogoods, what do you think of the recommended changes? Thanks, Newtack101 (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rolf h nelson, seems like Mariogoods is out of the picture for now. What do you want to do? Newtack101 (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all the remaining issues with today's edits, let me know if I missed something. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Passing Newtack101 (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.