Talk:Hongcheng Magic Liquid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As of 2005, no working product has been released[edit]

(comes from here) I fixed that sentence. It's the typical post mortem of stuff that failed, so readers won't be left hanging about how the story ended, but it seems that I got it wrong on this case. More details would be needed to completely nail it and make sure that we are not assuming incorrect stuff (ex: did that company release other unrelated products?). --Enric Naval (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence looks like an opinion[edit]

The Hongcheng Magic Liquid incident was a free energy scam in China that could only be denounced thanks to the compromise of Chinese government to stop the raise of western pseudoscience and traditional superstition in countryside China after the death of Mao Zedong. revision as of 21:04, 14 January 2009

This looks like an opinion. --TS 21:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My fault, I reversed myself, I thought that this was a important point on the article and that it needed highligthing, it probably fails WP:MORALIZE. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hongcheng Magic Liquid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Under review now: reading phase. Jappalang (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

  • The scam was started in 1983, so why is the second paragraph focusing on 1994? As such, "Around that time" is inappropriate. What was reported about the scheme in the intervening 9 years?
  • "One of these efforts was to require the scientific authoritative journal Science and Technology Daily to carry an article critical of Hongcheng's invention, which had been previously rejected at several major Chinese publications."
"scientific authoritative journal": is the adjective "authoritative" required here?
What has been rejected at several major publications, an article critical of the invention or the invention itself? This is not clear here.
  • "his invention became more popular, finally reaching in January 28, 1993 the front pages of a major national newspaper"
It is pretty informal to say "an object" reached the front pages of a newspaper. It was featured on the front pages, or reports of its invention appeared on the front pages, would be better phrases.

Hongcheng Magic Liquid company

  • This section is skimpy (three short sentences) and could be merged with "Invention and initial experiments" into "Early history"

Chinese Government reaction and repercussions

  • "the most authoritative newspaper on China's science and technology"
This claim comes from a primary source (the Chinese government), and so it should be stated so in the article ("according to the Chinese government").
  • "It publicized the invention"
With this sentence coming so soon after "different newspapers carried different proportions of oil and water in their announcements, and used this to make a critical analysis", there can be confusion to which publication "it" is referring to.
  • "silenced Hongcheng and their supporters."
Is Hongcheng referring to the company or the man here? If this article is in American English, then the company is singular (and other words must be checked to adhere to American English). If it is in British English, then company can be plural or singular, but it would be best to refer to the company by its full name here (since there can be confusion with the man).

Fraud conviction

  • "to visit the northeast"
Since not all readers are familiar with where the company is located (Harbin), it might be better to append a descriptive clause ("northeast part of China") to the first mention of Harbin in the article.
  • "Zuoxiu asked them to Beijing to pass a scientific appraisal of his liquid"
Zuoxiu has a liquid too, or is "Zuoxiu asked them to bring a sample of their liquid for scientific appraisal at Beijing" the intent?
  • "as the country capital would be a proper for such a scientific and universal invention."
This has quite a few jargon and words to confuse.
Suggestion: "; the country capital has the equipment to conduct a more scientific and thorough examination of the invention."
  • "his invention collapsed by itself,"
This invention cannot collapse (it is an object). The ideas and beliefs about his product could.
  • "Hongcheng acquired the status of a legendary figure, because some people thought that it was a case of cover-up or of free energy suppression, where he would be imprisoned not because his formula would not really work, but because of refusing to release his secret formula to the government."
I replaced the contraction "wouldn't", that should not exist in an encyclopaedic text except in direct quotes. This sentence is long and snaky. Split it up, and watch out for the double-negative "... not because ... would not ..."

Political and cultural context

  • "Individual claiming to have "special powers" claimed that they project their Qi out of their body to cure people, and called "masters of Qi Gong", one of them being arrested after causing the death of several patients."
This is an incomplete sentence.
  • "The Asian Rhinoceros was being driven to extinction because pulverized Rhinoceros horn were said to prevent impotence."
What has this got to do with this magic liquid case (even in a broad context)?

Scientific explanation

  • Uncited section

Grammar

  • There are fused participles (noun-plus-ing), although I consider this not critical for GAs; however, as pointed above, there are incomplete sentences, and other illogical constructs. A reading of User:Tony1#Featured article candidates and good prose is recommended.

Sources

Is this transcript truly from China Daily? If it is, cite to the newspaper itself, not this forum site.
What makes facts.org.cn reliable?
  • Why are the following two links in the References section but not cited to?
    • http://www.kpcn.org/news/Read.asp?NewsID=4716&kpcn=.7055475
      How is this reliable? This is a community website, which puts a disclaimer at the end, stating "not responsible for ensuring copyright of article but please notify us". The author is not Xinhua news agency, but a moniker "Yi4 Ming3 (Idle name)".
    • http://www.bioon.com/popular/Class405/lishi/200505/110865.html
      How reliable is this site? Anonymous is a detriment. It is slightly helped by their recognition as a media partner for Bio-expos,[1] and not very much by publications.[2] The question is: which reliable source recognizes this site as reliable? Although this is moot if this site is not cited to.

In summary, GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Needs a copyeditor to go through the entire work (incomplete sentences, fused participles, etc)
    B. MoS compliance:
    Some skimpy sections, but this can be fixed
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Questionable reliability on certain sources used
    C. No original research:
    Dependant on the sources used
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    The Rhinoceros mention is hard to connect to the main subject
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Personally, I detect no bias from the article
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    No images
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I think this can become a Good Article, but it still requires some work as pointed out above. I am not too certain it can be done in a short time frame, but if so, the article can still be renominated at GAC once that has been done.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hongcheng Magic Liquid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Details of the scam[edit]

How did he convince people he could make fuel from water? Did he do a demo? What was the 'magic liquid'? How did the scientists refute his claims? --ESP (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hongcheng_Magic_Liquid&oldid=1200840389"