Talk:Zeng Guoyuan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 18:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an intriguing article. Review will come shortly. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for the belated review. There is but one issue, and that is the paucity of images within the article. The article can pass without one, but I myself believe that a few topical images can be input into the article. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally does not allow fair-use photos of living people and free photos of Singaporeans are extremely scarce. The short lead section and borderline BLP compliance are far more serious issues. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the lead needs to effectively summarize the article. BLP compliance in what capacity? QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Excessive details about controversies, not enough normal biographical information. The controversies are described in a tone that seems overly negative. I suggest seeking input from an expert on the BLP policy, as I am not one. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. What is the lead missing? I try not to give too much for a lead and I think as it stands now, the lead already summarises the article well. The tone is of a neutral point of view. All "negative" terminology is attributed to the sources through quote marks. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD. Also, the images? They do not have to be portraits of Zeng, but they must be topical. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I cannot think of any free topical image that would be of use to the article, other than a portrait of subject which is hard to get. I have beefed up the lede. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that. You might want to emulate the leads of Xi Jinping or Enrique Peña Nieto. Include background information and important details information on his early life, education, and career. Once this article's lead complies with GA standards, the article will pass. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• This article is in violation of WP:BLP and must not pass until this is addressed. This portrays the subject negatively and serves as a collection of dirt and lists every minor court issue with painstaking accuracy and coverage and little else besides controversy. It fails NPOV for starters if you want a review reason. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I have given the immediate fail option some pensive contemplation. I have decided I will allow the user to address these issues before failing the article. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't help it that Zeng chooses to generate so much controversy. Am I supposed to dilute the controversial content? Because they should still be mentioned in the article no matter what. I have written the article with the most neutral tone I can adopt. For some reason non-controversial info about him is scarce... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest seeking input at WP:BLPN and WT:GAN. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest the same. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have said that the article has significant prose and organization issues. What are his birth date and Shell employment doing in the Perennial candidate subsection? Why isn't the next sentence written in a more straightforward manner, stating his membership in the Workers party, and then that he left, rather than starting with "Formerly"? (And when, exactly, did he leave it? That's the sort of information that belongs in a good article, or even a B-class article.) Each section is its own paragraph (except the last), and the paragraphs do not appear to be logical units. Should the review ever move beyond the BLP matter, these issues need to be addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Final comments

Unfortunately, the article is not a GA quality article; as I noted 20 days ago, there are significant problems with it in a number of areas. The minor fixes that were made a few hours after my comments addressed only a part of the issues I noted, and no edits have been made subsequently to it. The new Early life section still has the issues I noted above regarding the third sentence: the prose is poor, the years in which he joined the Worker's Party (also written "Workers'" and "Woker's" in the article) unstated, the antecedents are unclear, and it is not at the Good Article standard. There are similar prose issues throughout, and also an absence of some of the definitive information about the subject that is needed for any GA. To enumerate where it fails the GA criteria:

1. The prose is not "clear and concise" and the spelling and grammar have a number of problems. Also, the lead section does not meet manual of style guidelines, both in that a fact is in the lead but not in the article (petrol station attendant), and the lead itself does not adequately summarize the rest of the article. (The copyright adherence has not been checked.)

3. It is not sufficiently broad in its coverage, as it does not include important details in his life, both professionally and politically

4. Noting the BLP issues identified above, it is not sufficiently neutral in its coverage.

6. There may not be any images available, but it would be nice if something from Commons was appropriate.

I would like to suggest that the nominator get a copyedit, perhaps from Guild of Copy Editors, but more, that a mentor be found who is experienced in writing Good Articles to help in identifying the many holes that this article has, and who is well versed in the various issues already noted, such as the BLP and NPOV ones noted above. Only when the article has been heavily revised along those lines is it likely to succeed at GAN.

Closing this review as not listed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)