Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to bring this article to GA status in the near future. This article has already appeared as DYK in October this year so I believe it can be further improved to become a GA.
In addition I'd like to ask the reviewer to check whether source 16 satisfies WP:SPS. A previous source I used was a slight point of disagreement during the DYK process (see [[1]]) but then I changed it and the promoting admin decided to WP:IAR. I want to ask whether this source may interfere with the GA process.
Thanks, S5A-0043Talk 03:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Comments from Z1720
editComments after a quick skim:
- Considering that source 16 is a non-English source, it might be difficult to find someone who can check this. I suggest that you seek out someone who speaks the language, perhaps from a Wikiproject from that language's country.
- "Criticism" sections are not used anymore because it implies a POV of negativity. Instead, I suggest renaming this as "Reception" and include all commentary about the subject, no matter how positive or negative it is.
- Retitled. I'll check if there are reports for positive reception later on. S5A-0043Talk 07:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm surprised at how few sources there are. Consider finding more sources at WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, archive.org, DOAJ.org, or your local library system.
- I'll try to look for more, but Chinese media isn't exactly that much of a source machine & also since I'm not in Shanghai right now (and I'll probably not return in the near future) it might be slightly tough. Nonetheless, I'll try. S5A-0043Talk 07:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review. S5A-0043Talk 07:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)