Talk:610 Office/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Keihatsu (talk · contribs) 03:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting and important topic, and it would be my pleasure to do the review. Stay tuned for comments. Keihatsu ^talk 03:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've just skimmed the article, and have a couple initial notes for now. I've read (or tried to read) Revenge of the Forbidden City for a class a few years ago, so hopefully I can bring some useful content suggestions in addition to stylistic ones.

There's a red link for Hao Fengjun. A search for his name turns up a lot of good results, so maybe it's worth creating an article? This is optional, of course.

Good idea—maybe in a little while. —Zujine|talk 17:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The propaganda section is a little weak, and the example given isn't the most compelling. One way to expand it is to add a short paragraph on how the propaganda strategy developed from April to July in 1999. There's also some good material on the Falun Gong page, though that's too long for this article.

I added some material that gives a better overview of the character of the propaganda campaign, mostly taken from other pages, and also added some details on how the campaign was initiated by the 610 office / central leading group. —Zujine|talk 02:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quote in the very last sentence looks like it got cut off.

Fixed.—Zujine|talk 17:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links are missing for a number of the books and articles that are cited, and there seem to be some minor variations in the referencing style. I suggest picking one and applying it consistently.

I've updated all the citations to use the standardised formats, and added the external links where available.—Zujine|talk 17:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that's a good start. Keihatsu ^talk 03:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple more suggestions:

The lead section should not contain citations. Make sure that all the cited information appears later in the article with proper references, then remove the ones in the intro.

Actually, it’s alright for there to be citations in ledes (see WP:MOS (lede)). Since so much of the material is potentially controversial, I think it’s best to keep everything thoroughly referenced. —Zujine|talk 02:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. It was something I picked up going over other reviews, but you're right.

Are there any more images that could be used? The ones being used are helpful, but only one of them is directly related to the 610 office and the anti-Falun Gong campaign, which should be the focus.

I added one that was deleted earlier without good reason. I also requested permission to use an image of 610 officers at a courtroom that I found on another site, but not sure if I’ll get a response from the owner of the image.—Zujine|talk 02:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Yongkang just retired from the Politburo. Maybe nothing has been published yet to answer this question, but if there are updates on the leadership or command structure, that should be indicated.

I haven’t heard of any updates, but the article makes it clear now that Zhou held the position through 2012. —Zujine|talk 02:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be curious if the 610 Office has any response to the allegations of reeducation and espionage. I assume it doesn't have a press office, because it's my understanding that this office doesn't really publicly exist, but it's worth looking into.

If you dig into the primary sources that were used by the secondary sources in the article, you’ll see that most of them actually are 610 documents. The CECC and James Tong, as well as other sources, rely almost exclusively on official party documents, and those are the sources that are discussing in really candid terms about propaganda campaigns and reeducation. They don’t seem to make much of an effort to hide this stuff.—Zujine|talk 02:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise I think it's almost there. No dead links or internal links needing disambiguation, the writing and references are of a high quality, and as far as I can tell it covers all the office's functions.Keihatsu ^talk 17:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, everything looks good here. I suggest keeping your eyes out for further publications that discuss this office and its evolving role in Chinese politics. With some more updated info, and maybe the image you're looking for and an organization chart or something, it could be made even better.;) Keihatsu ^talk 03:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]