This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports articles
Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status.
ALT2: ... that for her role as short-track speed skater in the movie Breaking Through, actress Meng Meiqi gained a weight of 15 kg (33 lb) in order to be closer in terms of physique of a short-track speed skater? Source: 《我心飞扬》曝海报 孟美岐领衔“四朵金花”冲金
Full review is to follow (spot check seems to check out though for newness and length), but before the review continues, I would suggest that the article be given a copyedit. The first hook is probably the best option here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are still multiple grammatical issues and weird wordings in the article, such as "Winter Olympic Games but lose opportunity to win the gold medal" and "In order to present the best effect of Olympic athlete." I'll see if I can ask another editor to give this a copyedit, either Bruxton or Launchballer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I took out a number of clauses which were either tautologous or too nebulous to mean anything useful. I note that WP:UPSD highlights refs #6, #7, and #18 in yellow and wonder what makes them reliable, and I suggest that the single-sentence #Soundtrack section should either be expanded or merged.--Launchballer06:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Launchballer: So I have integrated the single line of 'Soundtrack' with 'Production and pre-publicity'. Are there any other aspects that needs to be rectified before the article can be all cleared for DYK? - Toadboy123 (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've moved it to another part of the article, as single-sentence paragraphs are discouraged per WP:PARAGRAPH. I'll let Narutolovehinata5 complete the rest of the review, including sources.--Launchballer19:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Article was new enough, long enough, and adequately sourced at the time of the nomination. Sources are all in Chinese so AGF. However, just to be sure I checked the article and the relevant sources and they all check out. A QPQ was provided; however it was a relatively incomplete reviewer that didn't explicitly check all criteria (for example bringing up the need for a QPQ or if the article was eligible), so I'm not sure if it is complete enough to count for a QPQ. I did not find any close paraphrasing. All of the hooks are cited inline, but the first hook (which is cited to an English source and mentions the hook fact) is probably the best option here. Apart from the QPQ, another minor issue is that the article is inconsistent with its date format: the article primarily use DMY, but some sentences use MDY. For consistency, the article has to stick to one or the other but not mix both. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, those things do indeed check out, whether they mentioned them or not. So maybe a {{minnow}} to Toadboy123 to encourage him to be more comprehensive the next time and I think that handles it. RoySmith(talk)12:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Full review is to follow (spot check seems to check out though for newness and length), but before the review continues, I would suggest that the article be given a copyedit. The first hook is probably the best option here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
