Talk:National without household registration/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 20:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

In progress. Sammi Brie (t • c) 20:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Many citations to relevant laws in this section.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The pruning of this article has resulted in a honed article with a very tightly defined scope and which imparts detail while being accessible to readers—like this one—not familiar with the topic.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Very well done in terms of maintaining NPOV and neutral terminology in an article that in several places mentions the ROC and PRC together.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Horserice has been the predominant contributor in the last year and few other changes have been made in recent months.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Two public domain photos. The mention of labeling in the caption for the ID card no longer relates to the image because a 2019 revision removed the annotations.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The caption on the first photo needs to be altered before this nomination is passed.

• @Horserice: This article has been reviewed and it looks great. It's clearly benefited from being trimmed back and having a tightly defined scope. The main stumbling block is one you might not have noticed. In 2019, the identification card image was changed to a new revision that removed the annotations, which are referenced in the caption. I'm putting this on hold for 7 days to allow this to be fixed or replaced with an appropriate new image. Sammi Brie (t • c) 20:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Sammi Brie: Thanks for reviewing! I changed the image caption to no longer reference old image annotations. Horserice (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• The new caption resolves the pending concern. This is a great example of how less can sometimes be more in an article and slimming it down can result in a better product. I will be passing this article. Sammi Brie (t • c) 22:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)