Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Central Commission for Discipline Inspection/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 23:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC) · contribs), Colipon (talk)[reply]

My first FAC! ... The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection is the

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support by R8R

Support. At this point, I'm happy to conclude my concerns have been addressed. (Note I haven't checked the article against prose quality.)--

• Done As a general note, I suggest this article should written in either American English or British English. Spelling differences are covered by this online tool (it is not unwise to check other issues this online tool highlights), plus add (for AmE)/don't add (for BrE) serial commas, and if you decide to move to AmE, use the "MMMMMMM DD, YYYY" date formatting. Plus check the comma usage in "In 2009 the CCDI..." (no comma, BrE) vs. "In late 2013, Zhou Yongkang" (comma, more like AmE). There are other differences between the two, these are just the basic ones; in general, as a non-native speaker, I won't focus on prose quality much
  • British. I'll work on it. --TIAYN (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• communist vanguard party -- two separate wikilinks should not immediately follow each other (see
  WP:SEAOFBLUE
  ); remove either link or add a non-linked word/phrase between them

• CPC party -- At best, spell it out on the first occurrence of this acronym within the body of the article (article text minus the lead section) just like you did with "CCDI"; from that moment on, "CPC" will, however, be enough
  • It says "Communist Party of China" (CPC) in the lead.
    • Yes, it does. However, in my personal experience, it is favorable to treat the body separately from the lead section. Lead is just a short summary of what will be described in the body, and the lead is independent from the rest of the article, unlike regular sections, which may depend on each other to some extent. So if you know you want to read the whole thing, you may skip the lead because it doesn't have any info you can't learn by reading the rest of the article. (Also, note you did just that with a few other acronyms, re-introducing them to the reader after the lead, such as "CCDI" or "MOS")
      • Done But it also says communist party in the "Before the People's Republic" section... --TIAYN (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I added that one. :)

• Despite this -- "however"?
  • What do you mean?
    • The text had that "despite this" in it, but I think, "however" is better in the context of English language. I'll change that. (somehow, this did get me so I commented, in general, as I said, I don't plan to focus on this)

•  The 1927 control system -- it's clear what control system is being discussed, no need for that "1927"

• they expanded on the theoretical reasons for its existence -- I suggest this should be rephrased, I don't understand it (what/who are "they"?)
  • Chanted to "the party leadership expanded [...]"
    • Aha. Now I see what you were saying with that sentence.

• Done The 1949 Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) -- I'm confused. up to this point, I was explained where new institutions came from
  • No English sources I have actually discuss this.. @Colipon:, would you be willing to check this out? --TIAYN (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note you are allowed to use non-English sources if there are no English sources of similar quality. (
      WP:NONENG
      )
      • I wrote this article in collaboration with Colipon... I'm not very good in Chinese. I'll find something... --TIAYN (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Central Control Commission (CCC) -- this term has already been spelled out, the acronym would suffice

• until the Cultural Revolution -- for a person unfamiliar with the history of Communist China, a brief mentioning of when the said revolution took place would be really helpful
  • wrote, in the body, "Cultural Revolution, a socio-political movement which lasted from 1966 until 1976".. Enough?
    • Just enough.

• Guangzhou Red Guards -- who is that?
  • wrote "
    Red Guards
    , a revolutionary youth movement", good enough?
    • I'd specify the movement is related to the CPC. (It would help those who aren't familiar with China, so they won't deter from reading for a single second to think whether the movement is related to the state, or is in some opposition to it)

• 11th National Congress -- which took place in... when?

• (in its journal) -- what journal are we talking about? Also, do we need to mention the journal at all ("Although the institution declared it was doing a good thing, someone else disagreed" -- it makes little sense to mention a committee-controlled journal supported the committee, doesn't it?)
  • Removed. --TIAYN (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• bourgeois democracy -- this is not a neutral term; use quotation marks?
  • Why? Its just a term Marxists use.. No different from people referring to democracy as liberal democracy.. By using quotation marks we are in fact saying that the Marxist premise is nontrue, and that is non-neutral. In addition its the term they use to describe supporters of liberal democracy. I don't see the problem. --TIAYN (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see what you mean. My initial opposition came from the fact I've never heard the term "bourgeois" outside of communist propaganda, especially the propaganda related to Lenin and the period of late 1910s and early 1920s. However, I'm not exactly sure this is still the right way. I will stay away from discussing the term "liberal democracy" (I've heard it a couple of times, but I'm not all that familiar with it). But, still, if only Marxists use this term, I'd rather stay away from it because Wikipedia is supposed to be universal, and if the term "liberal democracy" means more than just regular "democracy", the two shouldn't be used interchangeably either.
      • • The term bourgeoisie democracy stems from the writings of Marx, but you're correct that the term "bourgeoise democracy" was invented Soviet ideologists. Being Russian, you will probably also know that propaganda in the Soviet Union were synonymous for the most part with ideological campaigns (but also blatant lies). Liberal democracy pretty much means democracy as practiced in the Western countries.. Russia for instance, is sometimes characterized as a Illiberal democracy. --TIAYN (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Aha. Let's put it this way, I'd put quotation marks there, but I can see your reasoning and won't object not including them. (For a second, I misread the part on Russian democracy and thought someone classified it as a liberal democracy... "Illiberal democracy" feels more like what we have around now, what a great term)

• Ministry of Supervision (MOS) -- introduced three times

•  11th National Congress in 1977 -- so now I'm told when that congress took place (also, no double linking needed here)

I'm stopping here. More to follow--

@

R8R Gtrs: Thanks! --TIAYN (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Hu Jintao -- I'd specify he was elected during the 16th National Congress (for the first time)
  • He was elected by the 1st Plenary Session of the 16th Central Committee... Wrote "The
    18th National Congress
    ," ...
• general secretary Xi Jinping -- timing is a thing, don't ignore it
  • Wrote "Xi Jinping, elected in the immediate aftermath of the 18th National Congress"

• for the first time in its history -- a huge portion of events described in this article happened for the first time in the history of CCDI, do we need to specify that?
  • Removed
• Office for the Supervision of Disciplinary System Officials (纪检监察干部监督室) -- the name in Chinese? a striking difference from the rest of the article, which is doing fine without original names

• "1977–1978" or "1978–87"?

• "Zhao Ziyang [...] Zhao's reforms" "Hu Jintao [...] Hu Jintao's term" -- so if we say a name of a person, do we refer to them using just their family names or complete names?

• After the 12th National Congress it was required -- by who?
  • Changed to "The 12th National Congresss required"
• CCDI is not in session -- could this be rephrased?
  • Done Changed to "when the CCDI is not convened for a plenary session" .. Workable?
    • OK
• Done Offices, Institutions subordinate to the CCDI -- if this was some spreadsheet, then the presence of those lists would be justified, but in an encyclopedia article, how are these needed? I suppose this is what the "List of..." articles are for?
  • True... The problem is that I found few sources discussing them.. I'll be working on a solution, a list is a possibility. --TIAYN (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Created two separate articles; Internal organization of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and Institutions directly under the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection. --TIAYN (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DoneEven those who shared the Soviet fascination with [...] did not share its fascination with -- rewording is needed here (besides, "its"?)
  • Wrote "Even those who shared the Soviet fascination with organisational self-correction, like Liu Shaoqi and Dong Biwu, did not share their obsession with "scientific administration"."
    • Done I would go with a softer word for the second case, such as "attitude," but, as I said, I won't be too harsh on prose quality
      • OK, but attitude doesn't work here grammar wise. --TIAYN (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you're talking about "attitude with"... I take the fact the preposition would need to be changed for granted (but, again, I consider this solved)
• Doneish commissions for discipline inspection (CDI) -- this term has already been introduced. However, it can be justified we're talking about the CDIs in detail here, so it can be re-introduced, but in that case, the same would apply to the MOS, and you would need to re-introduce it as well.
  • Reintroduced Ministry of Supervision in the MOS section.

• Done a level above it -- "next superior"?
  • wrote "superior to it"
    • Will do, I guess

• Done "It is difficult for CDIs to carry out their responsibilities", "it is nearly as difficult to obtain authorisation from the investigative committees" -- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that attempts to describe things without judging or giving opinions (quoting opinions of some other people is possible, given we're clear on who those quotes belong to). You could say, "obtaining authorisation from the investigative committees is, however, a re-occurring problem" or smth. like that. Another question is, why is it so difficult? Corruption within the anti-corruption system? Bureaucracy?
  • wrote "Before the 2014 reforms it was difficult for the CDIs to carry out their responsibilities;[56] although they no longer needed approval from the secretary of the corresponding-level party committee, CDI officials were often appointed to positions of power within the institutions they were tasked to supervise (see "Institution-building (2002–present)" section)."
    • Done Great, things are now clear. :) One very minor issue is linking: you have "(see below)" and "(see "Institution-building (2002–present)" section)." I think it would make sense to either name the section "below" or replace "Institution-building (2002–present)" section" with "above", and either link the whole parenthesized note or contract linking to just "below/above" or the name of the section you refer to.
      • see above. --TIAYN (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Donethere are weaknesses -- affecting what exactly? still not clear to me
  • Wrote " Despite this, there are several weaknesses to its institutional design in the sense that certain informal aspects of CPC rule compete with formal procedures (that the CCDI and its lower-level organs are tasked with supervising) for hegemony; examples are, as outlined Xuezhi Guo, "vague institutional positions, incrementally declining effects as time goes by, vulnerability to patron-clientelism or guanxi network at the grassroots level, and the dilemma of 'open' or 'undercover’ investigation"." ... Good enough? --TIAYN (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Done Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Central Military Commission (军委纪委; Junwei Jiwei; CMCCDI) -- first of all, do we need the name in Chinese, second, the English name suggests the acronym should be "CDICMC", or is there a particular reason to use the current one?
  • Great. Nonetheless, could you explain why the current acronym is used? (There may be some reason behind it, like, say everyone refers to the commission by that acronym, but in that case, I'd like to know it)
    • Done Changed to CDICMC.. never noticed. The acronym is normal used by non-Chinese scholars. --TIAYN (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Fixed, but work in progress (but I'm not sure if you're correct about "led" and "lled"...) modeled -- in BrE, this is spelled "modelled"; note there are other verbs throughout the article that would require a re-spelling from "-led" to "-lled"
  • I checked this issue, there was also the verb "signaled" (which I changed to "signalled")

• Done PLA's General Political Department -- what's a "PLA"? it's clear, but you never introduced the acronym before

• Done information on what was supervised (and why) was -- this is grammatically correct, yet it confused me for a second. could we rephrase this?
  • Expanded to "While member supervision was not new, information on what was supervised (and explanations for why things were under supervision) was.".. Alternately "While member supervision was not new, information on what was supervised (and the explanation for why certain areas were supervised and others not) was."

• Done "Inner Supervision Regulation" -- be consistent with quotation marks usage

• Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI)[note 1] -- again, is there a reason for the Chinese abbreviation?
  • It would argue for its inclusion since its in a note it doesn't disrupt the reading flow (its in a note)... --TIAYN (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably I wouldn't even care if the latter was included because it makes sense to give the original name in the lead. But I was surprised by the fact you mention the short Chinese name for the commission, but you don't include the full Chinese one.

      What I'm getting to is, I would expect to see the Chinese name listed, but I'm surprised how you list only the short name and not the full name, listing both names would be great. Or just the full Chinese name. Or no Chinese name at all.

      @Trust Is All You Need: I am sorry to see this review fall so short from support, so pinging you in case you forgot about it. I could accept either improvement per my advise, or some reasonable explanation why the current version is better instead, but I want either thing. This little issue is the only reason why I'm not supporting this article's promotion (yet), and I'll be happy to support it once this issue has been dealt with

  • I never got the ping :P ... In any case, done.. I removed the first sentence. --TIAYN (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done It was disbanded during the Cultural Revolution. -- add that "in 1969"

• Done beginning with Hu Jintao's term as party leader -- + "in 2002"

• Done CPC should be consistently referred to as either "a party" or "the Party"

• Done The Secretary of the CCDI has, since 2009, also served as the leader of the Central Leading Group for Inspection Work and, since 1997, has been a member of the Politburo Standing Committee. -- logic dictates the mentioning of the "since 1997" responsibility should precede the "since 2009" one

Overall, an interesting article. Final comments to follow.--

@R8R: Is anything left? --TIAYN (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Unfortunately this has failed to gain consensus for promotion after being open for almost two months—it will be archived shortly. You may renominate after the standard two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk)23:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]