Talk:Qualifying industrial zone

Public Domain

Please note that the source CRS Report for Congress is the work of the US Federal Government, and is in Public Domain. As a result, I have copied parts verbatim. Please do not mark it as a copyvio. Zithan (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Qualifying Industrial Zone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Pre-review Notes

1. How many QIZs are there? Put that in the lead.

1. Countries aren't wikified.

1. Many confusing terms aren't wikified. Basically, link any terms that someone not familiar with the subject might not understand.

1. A better explanation of the regualations section would be nice.

1. Expansion of Criticisms section possible?

Review by ErikTheBikeMan

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   There doesn't seem to be that much citing/referenceing. For example, the entire first paragraph has only one citation. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Per above. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Per notes 1, 4 and 5. Also, an expansion on the history section would be nice, if possible.ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   There may be some conflict, per this diff. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

   No further edits were made relating to that diff. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Are there images?

   B. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   C. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   I'm not too sure that the last image is apporpriate. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass.

   I'm placing this review on hold for seven days for the nominator/other editors to fix the issues raised above. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

   Passed. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Replies

Thanks for reviewing it.

1. How many QIZs are there? Put that in the lead.

   Done

   )

2. Countries aren't wikified.

   WP:CONTEXT does away with linking country names (Reference: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-08/Dispatches 2)

   WP:CONTEXT states that "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully...This can include... topics that already have an article..." I would like to see some of the names of major players in QIZs linked, even if the links are to "Economy of..." ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Many confusing terms aren't wikified. Basically, link any terms that someone not familiar with the subject might not understand.

   Could you point out some terms? I'll be glad to wikify them.

   • tariff or quota restrictions
   • trade zones
   • eight-year old free trade agreement between the United States and Israel (link to the article about that agreement)
   • value-added goods
   • boycott

   Et cetera. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

4. A better explanation of the regualations section would be nice.

   Tried to convert it to prose... its a horrible mess now. I'm not sure if this is what would make it clearer. Let me know. I'll try and think of something better

   I still think that all the precentages make the section hard to comprehend. Perhaps the list was better, with an explanation at the endErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

5. Expansion of Criticisms section possible?

   So far, that's the only reliable source that covers criticism. :(

   Understood. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Zithan (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)