Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Economy of the People's Republic of China/archive1
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 20:57, 14 January 2007.
Economy of the People's Republic of China
Nomination for Featured Status. --Jones2 11:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The citations need some work. A lot of them are just plain external links. / Peter Isotalo 12:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Switches between inline citations and external jumps, and even when combined, those still only add up to 13 references for a very long article. -- Kicking222 14:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Kicking222. Rlevse 16:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Kicking222. --tennisman sign here! 18:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object 1a and 1c. Here are examples just from the lead.
- I balked at the very first words: "For the purpose of this article, the economies of the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau are treated separately from the rest of the People's Republic of China, and are excluded from this article." Remove either the first phrase (and "and" at the end), or the last phrase—prefereably remove the first.
- "As of 2005, 70% of China's GDP is in the private sector. The smaller public sector is dominated by ..." By "smaller", are you telling us that 30 is less than 70? We don't need to be told that.
- "These reforms started since 1978 has helped ..."—"Has"? Commas for nested phrase, please.
- "To this end the authorities have ..." To what end? There are several candidates in the previous sentence.
- Big referencing problems. Tony 00:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OBJECT Chiefly because it doesn't meet 1(a) as it is not well written, compelling or brilliant. It reads like a dry economics lecture. And a badly written economics lecture at that. Now, having studied economics, I know that it is entirely possible to make the subject sound interesting. 1(b): This article is not comprehensive. Several sections (agriculture, labor) don't delve into the topic with any more than a perfunctory mention. Need more discussion of various sectors of the economy, historical dynamics, cliometrics, . Also, it doesn't meet 1(c) in that it is, aside from 5 current references, completely uncited. Lastly, no images, so it doesn't meet Criteria 3. Some pictures of modernized Chinese factories (esp. because of American outsourcing to china) would be appropriate. Perhaps a picture of the damming of the Yangtze River for power (causing pollution, ecological impact, social upheavel). Graphs and statistic boxes are o.k., but you need pictures. —ExplorerCDT 09:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object fails many of the Criteria, particularly the fact that it doesn't have any images, and there are some citation issues that need to be worked out. Everything else has been pointed out by Tony. Arjun 01:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object. Under-referenced with stylistic problems, such as external jumps. I remember I had consultated this article for an essaie of mine, and I'm afraid some data are not updated.--Yannismarou 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.