Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 Nobel Peace Prize/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:14, 5 October 2011 [1].

2010 Nobel Peace Prize

Nominator(s): Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is of significant international political interest. It has been thoroughly reworked since the last nomination was withdrawn in July, and I believe the article now meets the FA criteria. I hope for it to achieve featured status in time for TFA on the first anniversary of the award (8 October), or failing that the first anniversary of the award ceremony (10 December). There is another window on 25 December, the second anniversary of Liu Xiaobo's incarceration. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to preface the review with a brief comment on citations: the online version of the South China Morning Post was used in the preparation of this article. The SCMP site does not display page numbers of the printed version; they have a strange way of archiving after a few weeks so that articles are no longer available using urls even with a subscription. Syndicated articles are not archived by SCMP, so I have added alternative sources as primary references where available, whilst retaining the SCMP citation. A small proportion of articles have no alternatives as they seem to be exclusives. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done (these were an issue last time, so they will need to be done at some point). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref for candlelight ceremony?
Why add (UK) for The Independent and not eg. The Guardian or The Times of Earth?
Be consistent in whether you use base URLs or publishers for web citations, and if the former how these are formatted
Why italicize News24 but not CNN? Check for consistency
Check formatting of quotes within quotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Un-italicsed News24 (mistake on my part because our article uses italics. I'm fairly sure only print publications are italicised now. By base urls, I assume you mean news.com.au and Boxun.com? I meant to use base urls only when the base url is the common name of the publisher. See Boxun.com and news.com.au. But I also used it for two non-English sources when I was unable to find what the publisher is commonly called: news.163.com and news.hotpot.hk. Jenks24 (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I figured that the location tags were unnecessary, so have now removed them. I sorted the other bits out. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Quadell

You seem to have two different formats for quotations, rquote and quote, which look very different. Why?
There seem to be some organizational difficulties still. For instance, the first paragraph outside the lede is very short, comprising 2 sentences: the first about the candidates and the second about prize money. Then the next paragraph is about the candidates again.
Why is "Reactions inside China: Central government" separate from "Diplomatic pressure"? Both include difficulties in China-Norway relations. Does "Diplomatic pressure" deserve a top-level section rather than a subsection?
Some wikilinks use piped redirects that are uninviting for those not already familiar with the topic. For instance "the mothers" links to Tiananmen Mothers, and "the concert" links to Nobel Peace Prize Concert. I assume that the "|Democratic Party" link is a typo?
Most statements in the lede are not sourced, but some are (and some have 2 or 3 sources). There doesn't seem to be a reason. For instance, some direct statements in the lede are sourced, but others are not.
"Cyber sleuths" does not sound encyclopedic to me in an article like this.

Response to Quadell

quote styles now unified
related short paragraphs merged
I've retitled and regrouped the sections: I feel the diplomatic pressure needs to be dealt with separately as it was an intense effort to pressure for a boycott that ran as a thread separate from the barrage of censorship propaganda and governmental condemnations.
pipings now adjusted
as the lead section is a summary of sourced material in the body, the refs are now all removed
"Cyber sleuths" changed. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.