Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beijing opera

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

---

Beijing opera

I have been working on this article for about 2 months. I now feel that it is just about ready for FAC. The topic is Beijing opera, the most famous type of Chinese opera. I think I have covered everything about this topic, without going into detail that could best be put in a sub-article. It has been in peer review for over 10 days, but I don't think it is going to get any more comments. Thanks in advance.--Danaman5 17:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I forgot that articles shouldn't be at peer review and FAC at the same time, so I have now archived the peer review.--Danaman5 19:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Support - as I can see that the Peer Review has been "taken care of" I have to say that this is a good and well-referenced article. Booksworm Talk to me! 20:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Support - All expectations have been addressed. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Is there a reason for the lack of citations in the lead? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 09:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have always been a bit confused about citations in the lead. Some people say it is required, others don't. Look, for example, at the featured article on the Main Page today, Dhaka. No citations in the lead. However, look at the article Yosemite National Park, recently on the main page. Citations in the lead. So which is it? If you can direct me to some policy or some kind of discussion on this issue where there is a consensus affirming the need for citations in the lead, I will add them. Otherwise, it just seems redundant to me.--Danaman5 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Citations added.--Danaman5 06:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment; there seems to be a slight confusion between haushan and haudan in the Dan section: "a haushan combines the status of the qingyi with the sensuality of the huashan" doesn't make sense. Is the second haushan supposed to be haudan? Other than that, this is a fine article. Laïka 12:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you.--Danaman5 16:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Support; an interesting and detailed article. Laïka 16:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Note on the Opera Prject page/Colin Mackerras

Thanks for your note on the Opera Project. As there is really no connection at all between opera and Chinese opera we don't include the latter in the scope of our project, although personally I have seen a lot of Chinese opera (in China).

One question, re FAC, why is the work of Colin Mackerras (Chinese Theatre/Peking Opera etc) not mentioned? He has written some of the most scholarly material on the subject available in English. Regards. --Kleinzach 10:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I had a feeling that the Opera WikiProject doesn't cover Chinese opera. However, I had already left a message on WP:CHINA and received relatively little attention, so I was unsure of where else to go. Do you know of any other WikiProjects that might be interested? As to your comment on Colin Mackerras, I certainly read some of his work in writing this article. I must have never actually cited any. Give me a little time, and I will see what I can include.--Danaman5 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed that I did in fact cite one article by Mackerras already - See reference 14. However, I will see if I can add anything more from him.--Danaman5 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If You Want To Know How To Listen To A Song.. Which I Am Doin, I Am Tryin To Find A Chinese Opera Song Called 18 miles away. i think, And I Cant Find Out How To Do Iht. A Need it for a school project.. about china.. if anyone can find out. please. tell me somehow.. I have told to do this.. and i need to burn iht on a Cd,,,,,,, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.71.107 (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Update

I have added citations to the lead, fixed the typo, and added a bit more by Mackerras (I may yet add more from him). I believe I have responded to all of the above points. Please place any new comments below this point (purely for my reference).--Danaman5 06:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support, but one question - is there a reason for the liberal use of subheadings? It seems to disrupt the flow a bit for me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  I tried to strike a good balance between having tiny subheadings with little information and having huge undifferentiated sections. Which subheadings do you feel are particularly unnecessary or distracting? What would be your recommended structure for the article?--Danaman5 16:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • If I were putting this together, I'd eliminate most of the subheadings in sections 2, 3, and a few in 4. I'd keep the Taiwan section but move it to the end of the second section, and eliminate all the subheadings under 3. In 4, they make a little more sense and aren't as structurally jarring. Obviously, this is only my preference and it doesn't change how well done this is as a whole piece, but that's simply how I would have done it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent)Moving the Taiwan sub-section to the end of section 2 might be a bad move, as it would raise questions as to whether Taiwan is part of China or somewhere "around the world", which would surely lead to problems later. I combined them in a different way, tell me if that is satisfactory. I combined the tiny, useless sub-section at the end of section 3 into the training section, but I just can't bring myself to remove all of the sub-sections from section 3. It is just way too much undifferentiated text for my taste. I also combined two sub-sections of section 4 into one. I know that it isn't exactly the set of changes that you would have me make, but since the issue wasn't large enough to merit an oppose from you in the first place, I hope that you can accept this compromise. Take a look and let me know.--Danaman5 17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's sensible, I think it looks a little better, but, again, different strokes for different folks. Great job on this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going out of town this weekend and may have no access to a computer. If anyone posts any additional comments on the article, I will begin to address them on Monday.--Danaman5 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.