The article mentions "Uniform egalitarianism", which is not a commonly used term. I couldn’t find any specific information about it, I am wondering if there may be some defect in translation. I undersand that Egalitarianism is a school of thought within political philosophy that prioritizes social equality for all people. So I'm confused by this statement:

> Under the leadership of CCP general secretary Xi Jinping, the term gained large-scale prominence, with Xi defining common prosperity as more equal distribution of income, but also saying that it is not uniform egalitarianism. Burt Harris (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject iconChina: Politics GA‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
 GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese politics (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review[edit]

Passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Common prosperity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 12:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    See spotcheck below
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig shows 64%, but that's due to long quotes, so it's fine.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagZhejiang Pilot Zoneged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I will get to this review in the next week. If you have time, please consider reviewing an article at WP:GAN. I will be using this review in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

Random source spotcheck
  1. 12 good
  2. 24 good
  3. 35 good
  4. 47 good
  5. 48 good
Notes
 Done. The Account 2 (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. The Account 2 (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. The Account 2 (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks a lot! The Account 2 (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by The Account 2 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Common prosperity; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.
Overall: Article [created by LondonIP on January 1, 2022] was promoted to Good Article status on March 8, 2023. The [Earwig score is more than 60% Earwig, but that's due to long quotes, so it's fine.] RV (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories