Hi Everyone,
I've listed this article for peer review because the last time it has been reviewed it was rated Start-class and I tried to improve it as much as I could but honestly I have kind of run out of ideas for improvements so I would very much appreciate it if someone could take a look at it!
Thanks, Orlandov123 (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello! This is 16dvnk. This is my first peer review, and please forgive me if I make any mistakes. I am happy to get started and thank you for your understanding. I have found multiple issues:
- 1. Some minor WP:MOS issues like "A bridge in Handan, referred to as Xuebu Bridge (学步桥, literally "Learning to Walk Bridge"), commemorates the fable and serves as a local cultural landmark[9]" or "The story's reference to Yan and Handan highlights the cultural diversity of the time and reflects Daoist skepticism about abandoning local tradition in favor of external models[5]" which should be corrected to ".... external models.[5]" etc. I have already fixed those for you.
- 2. Citations. After a scan, all sources are online and not dead, which is a good thing. However, there are some minor wording issues that I afraid might border on WP:NPOV, including editorial phrasing ('notably revitalized', 'strategically deployed') and a weasel word ('notably'). In the sources, there are no mention of these words like "notably". Again, this is my first review, so maybe I am too sensitive, but I feel like that is an issue. Additionally, the lead section contains an unsourced generalization ('The idiom has been used throughout Chinese history and continues to appear in contemporary political discourse, particularly in discussions of cultural identity and the adoption of foreign practices or ideologies. Most scholarly discussion of the idiom focuses on its roots in Daoist philosophy and its later use in Chinese political and cultural contexts.') that might constitute original research. (refer to WP:NOR) Improving that would help boost the article's rating.
- 3. Weighting issues. The idiom is mostly about the 7 warring states. However, I have found that the political usage section may also give undue weight relative to the origin section, and the article seems too focused on Xi Jinping instead of the actual origins. Instead, the political side should be weighted lower, and the historical sections should be weighted more. "Commemoration A bridge in Handan, referred to as Xuebu Bridge (学步桥, literally "Learning to Walk Bridge"), commemorates the fable and serves as a local cultural landmark." This section should be expanded, as currently it is very short. The article focuses too much on one Xi statement and makes it a "socialist statement". Perhaps you can find more sources stating that, or weigh Xi less in the article, as the MC should be Handan instead of Xi.
- 4. There should be sources where brings some things together (like how Xi or Deng or modern presidents from communist states other than Xi) who use this and give modern interpretations, or even how the modern interpretation can cross over to the Seven Warring States. This will significantly improve your article and make it not border on WP:NOR.
- 5. The lead section does not adequately sum up the article. There is no mention of Xi or its socialist uses, nor any mention to the Xuebu Bridge or its significance. I put this last as if you fix the above items first, the lead section can be fixed easier as it is a summary of the article.
I hope that my advice has been useful. Again, I may make mistakes as I actually have less article creating experience than you, and this is my first time reviewing someone. Please let me know if I made a mistake. Thank you very much! 16dvnk (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you so much @16dvnk for your extensive review and advice! I will gladly go through your points and revise the article correspondingly; I appreciate your time and effort a lot!
- ~~~ Orlandov123 (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you very much for your understanding! Please note that there is no time limit to your edits, but preferably, a good time limit would be like WP:GAN, where initial fixes last for 7 days (and up to 14 days if needed). This de facto rule is the one I prefer (and plus I may be busy soon), and 1-2 weeks should be enough to address my points. However, please do not rush, and please take your time if needed. Thank you for your understanding. I appreciate your efforts. 16dvnk (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
- @Orlandov123 I have run a scan on copyvio and the AI detector GPTZero (the ones GA uses to scan articles) and have found a 40% match of copyvio. However, that is not the main problem since it flagged the translated raw text, and clearly that does not constitute as a violation of copyright. The much more glaring issue is that GPTZero flagged it as 100% AI. While I promote AI, the unfortunate bad thing is that Wikipedia prohibits it. (see WP:LLM and WP:AI) This is also not an accusation that you used AI, since GPTZero is notably unreliable for the absolute latest models like Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview or Claude Opus 4.8, but the issue is that other wikipedians would be extremely critical of this, and there will be 0 chance of a GA nomination or even a B as this is the first thing they check. Hence, the unfortunate conclusion is that there is another thing to work on is to make the article sound more encyclopedic and check for hallucinations in sources. This may or may not be your fault, and I apologize for this inconvenience, but we MUST fix the wording of the article as well. Thank you very much, and I will keep in touch with you for any other additional issues. 16dvnk (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
