Talk:Jinan incident/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 13:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll start this review shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking up this review. RGloucester — ☎ 14:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there an article on the historical period that could be piped to? I like the nav template at the bottom of the article - is there a main article for that template? (Sorry, we just finished unloading and are back on the road (I'm out with my husband the truck driver these last few weeks, so typing in a semi truck while bouncing is sometimes... interesting. I did the review while waiting to be unloaded...) Otherwise, yeah, probably an unpiped "China" is best. Btw... the article was quite good... very little needed fixing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I could pipe China to Warlord Era? That's the closest thing to an appropriate catch-all 'China' article for the time period that I can think of (or find). Once again, I'm much obliged for your review, especially considering the 'unusual' circumstances of its undertaking! RGloucester — ☎ 10:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that would work fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I found a catch-all article that I did not even known existed at Republic of China (1912–1949) (despite years working in this topic area...), so now I've linked that. RGloucester — ☎ 15:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Lead:
  • Nowhere in the first sentence is it mentioned that the incident took place in China...

Well, I'll say that there's a reason for that. At this time there were multiple governments of China....specifically, the Beiyang government and the Nationalist government. I'm not sure where to pipe the link from 'China' to, so I just avoided the situation altogether. Do you have any suggestions? Perhaps I can insert an unpiped 'China'. RGloucester — ☎ 14:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Background:
  • Might be a good idea to make it clear here that the NRA is the army for the KMT. Perhaps "were attacked by the KMT's National Revolutionary Army (NRA)"?

I think I've sorted this adequately. RGloucester — ☎ 14:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• NRA troops:
  • "The Northern Expedition resumed in April 1928, with Chiang Kai-shek firmly in command" but the last we've heard of Chiang ... he only had a tenous hold on power?

I think I've sorted this. RGloucester — ☎ 14:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "Prime Minister Tanaka" but earlier "Japanese prime minister Tanaka"? Consistency, there are other spots in the article also.

Please consult MOS:JOBTITLES. "Japanese prime minister", as a generic description, rather than a title, does not take capitalisation, whereas "Prime Minister Tanaka", as an official title before his name, does. RGloucester — ☎ 14:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

May I just say that this is a case where the MOS is an ass. It is going to get people confused that we don't know what we're talking about but... I stopped fighting the MOS (even when its stupid) a while back. It really does make folks think we can't hire editors when this sort of pseudo-typo pops up, but whatever. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Not to blacken my own teapot, but I was blocked long ago for contesting one such confusing MoS prescription. Like you, I've long since given up such 'fights', and simply abide the decisions that 'MoS Wikipedians' decide...this being an example. RGloucester — ☎ 12:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• • "This was the first serious case of unilateral action by the Japanese military." - first serious case in the lead up to the Jinan incident or first serious case in the whole of Japan's involvement in China in the 1920s and 1930s?

I've clarified with 'post-Meiji Restoration'. RGloucester — ☎ 10:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "chaos erupted as the defeated warlord troops began to retreat" - "defeated warlord troops" just reads clunky to me, can we find a better way to word this? And in the next sentence "The withdrawing warlord troops were" ... we probably don't need "warlord" here since "withdrawing" is enough to identify the troops, especially with the preceeding sentence.

I've tried to make clearer. RGloucester — ☎ 10:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "remained under the firm watch" strikes me as a tiny bit POV, would "remained under the control" work? Or perhaps something different.

Agreed, I've sorted it. RGloucester — ☎ 10:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• 3 May:
  • I think either "contested between the Japanese and Chinese sides" or "contested between the Japanese and Chinese." reads better.

Sorted. RGloucester — ☎ 10:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Aftermath:
  • Citation needed tag on the last part of the second paragraph needs addressing (I did not add it)

I am going to sort this, but it will take me a few days, as I need to retrieve a book from the library to add a citation...but I assure you that I will meet the relevant deadline. RGloucester — ☎ 10:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I've done this just now...I even managed to pick up a bit more information that I forgot to put in earlier. RGloucester — ☎ 15:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

if it takes a few days over the 7 to get the library book, no worries, just let me know. I’m very familiar with how sometimes something simple can take forever with a library...Ealdgyth - Talk 11:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, just waiting on the book, which I'm flexible on, if it takes a bit more time than 7 days, it's not a crisis. And this is an example of why I own so many books - I tend to just try to buy most books for wikipedia research... that way I have them forever. Or I copy the relevant parts (I have plenty of filing cabinets, luckily).

Looking good so far. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Doing paperwork now.. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)