Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ni Yulan/1

Ni Yulan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. Serious concerns with "Verifiable with no original research"

I have compiled a registry of the sources used in this article: New York Times (x4), Eurasia Review (x1), Radio Free Asia (x1), Chinese Urgent Action Working Group (x1), Frontline Defenders (x3), Human Rights Watch (x1), Christian Science Monitor (x2 - erroneous double cite [7][13]), Reuters (x1), Amnesty Int'l (x1), Lawyers for Lawyers (x1), BBC (x1), HK Free Press (x1), Government of the Netherlands (x1), Radio Netherlands Worldwide (x1), SCMP (x1), Voice of America (x1).

There are 23 sources in sum. While sources themselves are generally consistent with perennially reliable sources, each of the guidelines for several of the sources used (Amnesty, RFA, etc.) carry recommendations or disclaimers that citations of these sources should be done with caution (either amending the language for neutrality, or disclaiming a relationship to the U.S. government). However, the *majority of sources* as expressed (Lawyers for Lawyers, Human Rights Watch, China Urgent Action Warning Group, etc.) are primary by nature, have express political leanings and incentives, and are used as the guiding citation for several contentious claims in places where substantially more reliable sources may be called for.

B. Strong issues with WP:NPOV

Language in the text appears flaired or put in substantial excess of what the sources themselves say. For example, the sentence

having her passport arbitrarily denied by Chinese government authorities

is not found anywhere in the BBC article that the clause cites - at all. The article only indicates that Ni was released from prison and that she uses a wheelchair, which the article proceeds to suggest (without further provenance) that some of her supporters say are due to the hands of police - hardly sufficiently reliable to justify any unqualified claim regarding police brutality.

The passport claim, which is then repeated several times in the article (unqualified), may be found in some other sources (e.g., the New York Times), but such sources, e.g., [18], carry no particular provenance for the claim other than a direct interview with the person herself - by definition, a primary source for which the publisher has repeatedly and clearly disclaimed as content from the interviewee herself. This phenomenon repeats frequently and is once again an example of flawed authorship in the article.

Continued claims in the article about alleged social hardship, such as source [17] indicating her eviction, are themselves uncited and of dubious quality. No evidence, provenance, or citations are offered in the source. The only other source where the alleged 2017 window-smashing case is mentioned is in Hong Kong Free Press - once again, only through an interview by the subject herself.

These issues are present throughout the article. Overall, by inspection of about six sources, the article dramaticizes content with theatrical effect, relies overly on a persona constructed by the article subject herself through interviews, and offers no explanation connecting any of the disparate phenomena observed (e.g., window-smashing with passport denial, etc).

C. Cursory initial approval round

Upon inspection of WP:Peer review/Ni Yulan/archive1, it appears that no particular analysis or work was conducted on the article other than the addition of certain sources and basic formatting. No particular comment as to relationships with the GA criteria were discussed at all. Moreover, no commentary in relation to writing quality exists at any point, in any form, at any time. Augend (drop a line) 06:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Femke, who provided a second opinion at the GA review, for their thoughts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the only two concrete issues identified (removed the failed verification and double citation). I seem to have done a very cursory source check in the initial review, and identified one instance of text-source verification issue there. The text seems quite consistent in using phrases such as "According to Ni", and "According to Radio Free Asia", indicating proper attribution of primary sourcing. WP:RSPSS says inline attribution and a note of who funds RFA may be appropriate, but I think the name and inline attribution already give enough of a "warning" sign to readers that funding is not too relevant here. Many of the claims in the article are stated unattributed by sources like NYT.

Overall, I see not enough to delist the article here, but an explicit source check would be welcome. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checked another 2 sources ([16][18]), which revealed some close paraphrasing to 16. Changed my mind and not giving this the benefit of the doubt, but a proper spot check would be good. I think there may be more close paraphrasing to that source. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think I got all the close paraphrasing. I couldn't find further issues with source-text integrity, and have now checked roughly 1/3 of the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts Augend? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.