GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chinese Australian Herald/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: MCE89 (talk · contribs) 22:16, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DannyRogers800 (talk · contribs) 00:24, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Doesn't get more stable than this.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. I would add alt text to the images used.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

I'll review this over the next two days or so. DannyRogers800 (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Have replied to your initial comments below. MCE89 (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General

[edit]
  • Before giving a detailed review, you may consider Kuo's study "The Chinese Australian Herald and the Shaping of a Modern ‘Imagined’ Chinese Community in 1890s Colonial Sydney" (view it here), which is unused. Perhaps it can provide new material.
    • Unfortunately I had a read through it while writing this and found that Kuo had essentially repurposed that article into a section of her 2013 book, which is what I've used as my main source. There isn't really anything in the article that wasn't also in the book, so it seemed duplicative to cite both
      • Makes sense
  • You may want to add this image of a supplement to the Herald, or/and this one of a page from the April 13, 1907 edition.
    • This is great, thanks! Added.
  • The lead image needs alt text.
    • Done
  • Perhaps you can wikilink "Chinese" in the infobox, as it is wikilinked in the lead.
    • Done
  • I'm unsure about this; was the Herald written in a particular Chinese langauge?, as Chinese refers to numerous languages in China.
  • And thank you for your review!
  • I'll start with some small, mostly nitpicky prose and style suggestions:

Lead

[edit]
  • Perhaps the date or status of the paper can be hinted at in the small description. So, it can read, "Defunct Chinese-language Australian newspaper", or "Chinese-language Australian newspaper (1894–1923)".
    • Done
  • The newspaper was founded by the bilingual editors Lee Caizhang and Sun Johnson, with support from the businessmen James Alexander Philp and George Arthur Down.: You use the passive voice in most sentences of the first lead paragraph, which can be changed to the more direct, clear active voice. For example, this sentence can read, "The bilingual editors Lee Caizhang and Sun Johnson founded it, with support from the businessmen James Alexander Philp and George Arthur Down."
    • Done
  • on a weekly basis: Shorten to "weekly".
    • Done
  • In its early years, the newspaper has been described as acting as a bridge between white Australians and the Chinese community. You can remove the comma after "years", as you omit the comma after introductory date phases throughout the article. Also, I don't think the tense is consistent. Should it read, "In its early years the newspaper was [past tense] described as acting as a bridge between white Australians and the Chinese community", or "The newspaper in its early years [so, the early years of the newspaper] has been described as acting as a bridge between white Australians and the Chinese community"?
    • Done, the intention was the latter
  • While the paper was initially supportive of the Qing dynasty reform movement in China, it eventually shifted towards support for the nationalist cause in the years leading up to the 1911 Revolution. First, "was initially supportive" can be trimmed to "initially supported". More importantly, I think some background to what the "Qing dynasty reform movement" was can help. It would clarify why the two ideas (supporting the dynasty reform and supporting nationalism) are contrasted.
    • I've had another go at it, how does that look?
      • Reads well now
  • In its later years the paper also became more critical of Western imperialism and the treatment of Chinese-Australians. The "also" is unnecessary. And I suggest wikilinking "Chinese-Americans".
    • Done
  • I don't think "Chinese-Australians" should be wikilinked, as it's not being used as an adjective.
    • Assume you mean hyphenated? If so, agreed and done

Foundation and early years

[edit]
  • Philp and Down formed a company to operate the newspaper, which they named Down, Philp and Co.: Named is used in the previous sentence, so this can be shortened to "Philp and Down formed a company to operate the newspaper, Down, Philp and Co."
    • Done
  • More soon.