Talk:2000 Taiwanese presidential election/GA1
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Vacant0 in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 12:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I'll review this article. Vacant0 (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Kuomintang section: "
The ruling Kuomintang ran...
" — add Kuomintang's abbreviation KMT after the wiki-link which is used throughout the article. → Kuomintang (KMT) - "
This, combined with the fact that Chang had connections to both the DPP and the KMT
" – change DPP to Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) as this is the first time DPP is mentioned in the article. - Democratic Progressive Party section: "
The Democratic Progressive Party...
" → The DPP - Explain what black gold is, since this term seems to be only relevant to Taiwan. Readers might not know about it.
- "
and other opinion leaders
" – which opinion leaders? - Other candidates section: "
Former Democratic Progressive Party
" → Former DPP - Second paragraph: Wiki-link New Party to New Party (Taiwan) → New Party and add its abbreviation (NP)
- "
a move not then supported by the Kuomintang
" – change Kuomintang to KMT - "
During the 2000 campaign, the Hsu-Chu ticket promoted unification under something similar to (but not the same as) 'one country, two systems' (claiming that that exact system would be "bound to bring immediate loss to Taiwan")
" → During the 2000 campaign, the Hsu-Chu ticket promoted unification under something similar to, but not the same as, "one country, two systems", claiming that the exact system would be "bound to bring immediate loss to Taiwan". - Third paragraph: Unlink New Party as its is already mentioned in the previous paragraph. Change it to its abbreviation instead.
- 'one country, two systems' → "one country, two systems"
- "
Both he and his party publicly
" – in the previous sentence it is stated that Li refused to join NP. Change this to "Both he and the NP that nominated him" instead. - "
which generated condemnation from American leaders...
" – which American leaders? - Add People's Republic of China's abbreviation (PRC) next to its name as the abbreviation is used in the Aftermath section.
- "
Following the election, Chinese analysts
" – which Chinese analysts?- Can't find a specification. Any suggestions on how to rephrase? Duonaut (talk | contribs) 22:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- This seems to have been written by Christopher R. Hughes. I'd recommend changing this to: "According to Christopher R. Hughes, emeritus professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics, a conclusion was made that the statements of Chinese government had actually been counterproductive and helped Chen to win" Vacant0 (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Results section: "
The eventual winning Democratic Progressive Party...
" → The eventual winning DPP... - Aftermath section: First, second, and fifth paragraph: Kuomintang → KMT
- "
ending 50 years of rule by the latter (partly under a one party state)
" → ending 50 years of rule by the latter, which was partly under a one-party state. - unlink Lee Teng-hui as it is already wiki-linked above in the article.
- Second paragraph: "
Lee promised to resign at the party congress in September 2000, but this was not enough
" – the "but this was not enough" part is unnecessary. - "
Though the protest was without permit and technically illegal, the government did not break it up
" → Though the protest was organized without a permit, the government did not order to end the protest. - Third paragraph: "
On the same day, Soong announced the formation of the People First Party before a crowd of his supporters
" – On the same day as Lee's resignation? If that's the case change it to "On the same day as Lee's resignation, Soong announced the formation of the People First Party in front of a crowd of his supporters... - Fifth paragraph: "Some authors" – which authors?
- "
the presidency's supposed power was largely drawn from the power a Kuomintang leader would have over a united government led by the party (thus serving as party and government leader)
" should be re-written. - "
Consequently, Chen's first cabinet consisted of some Kuomintang members along with DPP members
" → consisted of KMT and DPP members. - wiki-link "legislative elections in 2001" to 2001 Taiwanese legislative election.
- Introduction: "
the Republic of China
" is redundant, the most recent presidential election for example only uses Taiwan, which is the country's most common name. - Abbreviations: "
...then-current vice president Lien Chan for the Kuomintang...
" → ...then-current vice president Lien Chan for the KMT...; "...Chen Shui-bian for the Democratic Progressive Party...
" → ...Chen Shui-bian for the DPP... etc.
- Kuomintang section: "
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- The {{Politics of the Republic of China}} template is redundant. The election is not present in the sidebar.
- Per MOS:JOBTITLE and in order to be consistent within the article: "
Vice President
" → vice president; "President
" → president; "Governor
" → governor; "Secretary-General
" → secretary-general; "Mayor
" → mayor; "Chairman
" → "chairman"; Un-link legislator. - Put the paragraph in the Results section before the results table.
- Put the "
(Note: Winners are bolded.)
" text in the table below along with the source; e.g. see that the source in the Results table is located at the bottom. - I think that the {{See also}} in the Aftermath section is not needed, it can be removed.
- Merge the third and fourth paragraphs in the Aftermath section.
- 2000ROCPresident.svg should be removed from the By county and city section, it is already in the infobox.
- "Presidential elections" in the introduction should not be bolded.
- Optional: add {{use dmy dates|date=November 2022}} at the top of the page.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. 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:
- Ling et al. 2000 should be have a URL.
- Hsieh 2001 should have a URL.
- Change 1996 should have a URL.
- Simon et al. 2004 should have a URL.
- Schafferer 2003 should have a URL.
- Ref 39 and 40 should redirect to the exact parts of those websites.
- Sources seem to be reliable.
- C. It contains no original research:
- Checked Ref 3, Ref 9, Ref 11, Ref 17, Ref 22, Ref 25, Ref 28, Ref 30, Ref 34, Ref 36, Ref 48, Ref 49, Ref 53. They all verify the content.
- Ref 5 does not back up "21 of his allies".
- CEC source in the Results table redirects to a dead URL. Except that, there are no dead references.
- Please archive the refs.
- IABot doesn't cooperate with me. It finds "nothing to archive". Any suggestions what to do about this? Duonaut (talk | contribs) 23:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- I can't tell it either. I've had problems with it about a week ago. I'll see what's wrong with it. Vacant0 (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- They are all properly tagged and aren't copyrighted.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Comments edit
@Duonaut: You've already completed some of these issues I addressed. Anyways, I'll put this article on hold for a week and I'll keep an eye on it until then. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Vacant0: I have addressed mostly everything you asked, with a few exceptions where I asked a question. Thanks for reviewing. Duonaut (talk | contribs) 23:56, 2 November 2022 (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.