Template:Did you know nominations/Primary stage of socialism

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Primary stage of socialism edit

(

)

... that the ideological concept of a primary stage of socialism explains the use of capitalist methods in the Chinese economy by the Communist Party of China?

Created by --TIAYN (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC).

Reviewed DYK nom; The Wrath of the Gods (1914 film) --TIAYN (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but for QPQ you have to review someone else's dyk nomination. --Soman (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Soman: I did, but I wrote wrong. --TIAYN (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I guessed so afterwards when I saw the nomination below. However, the qpq review needs to be more detailed that just 'approved'.

@Soman: Good enough now? --TIAYN (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the QPQ is now done. I have not reviewed the rest of the nominator, however, new nominator needed. --Soman (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Full review from scratch. (QPQ is already reviewed and accepted above by Soman.) New enough (for 14 May) and long enough. Hook is referenced to offline citation #15, accepted AGF. There are no external links; all citations are offline (accepted AGF). It is not possible to check for copyvio, as all sources are offline, but there is no reason to suspect copyvio. A fully-cited and comprehensive article; congratulations. Issue: "Orthodox" is a disambig link; TIAYN please would you kindly either correct or disconnect link? If the disambig link can be resolved this nom is ready to go.--Storye book (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: The English language in this article needs copy-editing, by a native speaker of English, for grammatical errors, e.g. in subsection Primary stage of socialism#Formulating the theory of a "primary stage of socialism" the word "emphasize" should be "emphasis", and "wrote about" should be "wrote that." However the meaning of the whole is clear enough for DYK review purposes.--Storye book (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Done fixed Orthodox link.. Secondly, you can spell it "emphasize" (american spelling).. emphasise is the British way of spelling it. At last, I've nominated it for guild of copyeditors (so its awaiting a copyedit.@Storye book: --TIAYN (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"Emphasize" and "emphasise" are spellings of the verb. "Emphasis" is the noun, and that is the one you need in this context. :-) --Storye book (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting the disambig link, and thanks for letting us know that the text is nominated for copyediting. Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)