Talk:East Turkestan Revolutionary Party/GA1
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Thebiguglyalien 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
Nominator: Yue (talk · contribs) 05:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 03:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I'll get a review written for this article within the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Thebiguglyalien: Thank you, I appreciate your time in conducting this review. I will respond promptly to your suggestions. Cheers. Yue🌙 05:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yue, I've checked the sources, and I have some concerns about how they're being used. The most immediate problem is that in several of the sources I checked, they didn't have all of the information that the article claims they do. I've listed the ones I checked below. If possible, could you quote the specific passages that support these in case I missed them? If I'm correct about the text-source integrity issues, then I have to assume that it's the same for the sources I haven't checked, including the non-English sources. In that case, the article will still need a lot of work to meet the GA criteria and I'll close the review so the sourcing issues can be resolved. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Thebiguglyalien: Thank you again for taking the time to conduct this review. I will try to begin addressing and remedying these issues within the next two to three days; if I do not, please close this review as a Fail. I may also contact you sooner if I believe that my real-life responsibilities are hindering me from properly addressing these issues at this time. I apologise for what appears to be shoddy reference work by myself. All the best, Yue🌙 03:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Thebiguglyalien: I do not think I will have enough time in the next few days to respond adequately to your comments thus-far. I request that you Fail this review at this time. Thank you once again for taking the time to review the article. All the best, Yue🌙 00:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- All right, I'll close the review. Besides the sourcing, the article looks pretty good overall, and I'm sure you know that Wikipedia can always benefit from more coverage of Chinese history. I hope to see more articles like this go through GAN in the future! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Thebiguglyalien: I do not think I will have enough time in the next few days to respond adequately to your comments thus-far. I request that you Fail this review at this time. Thank you once again for taking the time to review the article. All the best, Yue🌙 00:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Thebiguglyalien: Thank you again for taking the time to conduct this review. I will try to begin addressing and remedying these issues within the next two to three days; if I do not, please close this review as a Fail. I may also contact you sooner if I believe that my real-life responsibilities are hindering me from properly addressing these issues at this time. I apologise for what appears to be shoddy reference work by myself. All the best, Yue🌙 03:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yue, I've checked the sources, and I have some concerns about how they're being used. The most immediate problem is that in several of the sources I checked, they didn't have all of the information that the article claims they do. I've listed the ones I checked below. If possible, could you quote the specific passages that support these in case I missed them? If I'm correct about the text-source integrity issues, then I have to assume that it's the same for the sources I haven't checked, including the non-English sources. In that case, the article will still need a lot of work to meet the GA criteria and I'll close the review so the sourcing issues can be resolved. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Well-written
Verifiable with no original research
- Azizi (1987), Newby (1986), and Xu (2016) are listed in the sources but they're not cited anywhere in the article.
- Why does the article cite both Wang (2020) and Brophy's book review?
- How independent are the sources published in China? If they're subject to oversight by the CCP, that would mean we're using the position of one political party to write about a closely related party.
Spot checks for plagiarism and text-source integrity:
- Brophy (2023) p. 904 – I don't see anything about these different party names on this page.
- Benson (1990) p. 97 – This supports that Abbas was a delegate to Nanjing, but it doesn't say that the delegates traveled in December 1946
- Hasanli (2020) p. 123 – I was not able to find any mention of Soviet hesitancy to antagonize, postwar border security concerns, or any mention of the Kuomintang and anti-communism. The edition I checked is from 2021, is it possible the pages are different in this version?
- Hasanli (2020) p. 125 –
- Wang (2020) p. 240 – Checked all three uses – "Sources differ as to the official name of the" is the exact wording of the source presented as our own wording.
- Wang (2020) p. 241 – Checked all seven uses – With the fourth use, it doesn't say anything about a "vanguard party for the masses of Xinjiang, particularly the youth"
- Broad in its coverage
- Neutral
- Stable
- Illustrated
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.