Talk:Chinese Rites controversy/GA1: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
review finished |
|||
(18 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
*Some issues with [[:File:Ricci1.jpg]]. Lacking source information and author make it hard to check if the license is correct. As it is a cleaned version of [[:File:MatteoRicciProminentConvert.jpg]], it is fairly easy to add the author (Anthansius Kircher) and date (1667)--[[User:Tomcat7|Tomcat]] '''''([[User talk:Tomcat7|7]])''''' 16:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
*Some issues with [[:File:Ricci1.jpg]]. Lacking source information and author make it hard to check if the license is correct. As it is a cleaned version of [[:File:MatteoRicciProminentConvert.jpg]], it is fairly easy to add the author (Anthansius Kircher) and date (1667)--[[User:Tomcat7|Tomcat]] '''''([[User talk:Tomcat7|7]])''''' 16:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
::Thank you. It is done. Great suggestion! --<sub>([[:zh:User:Hanteng#.E7.A0.94.E7.A9.B6.E9.81.B8.E5.9C.96|comparing]]Chinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by [[User_talk:Hanteng|hanteng]])</sub> 17:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC) |
::Thank you. It is done. Great suggestion! --<sub>([[:zh:User:Hanteng#.E7.A0.94.E7.A9.B6.E9.81.B8.E5.9C.96|comparing]]Chinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by [[User_talk:Hanteng|hanteng]])</sub> 17:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
;first batach |
|||
*I am not sure about the "[i.e., the Christian God]" note. |
*I am not sure about the "[i.e., the Christian God]" note. |
||
:: hanteng: Me neither. Fixed with original quote with a clickable reference. {{diff|Chinese_Rites_controversy|542002704|542002039}} |
|||
*"but here they had a problem" - something like "but encountered a problem." |
*"but here they had a problem" - something like "but encountered a problem." |
||
:: hanteng: indeed, further improved with a footnote/citation |
|||
*I think more text is needed in some sections, eg "Kangxi's ban". I think more content should be added about the responses of other Chinese people, their response of Kangxi's opinion, etc. |
*I think more text is needed in some sections, eg "Kangxi's ban". I think more content should be added about the responses of other Chinese people, their response of Kangxi's opinion, etc. |
||
:: hanteng: I have tried to find additional reliable sources and expanded the article a bit, adding a few paragraphs and a section called "Qianlong's reinforcement"{{diff|Chinese_Rites_controversy|542040126|542027468}}. I have also found and included a sentence on the role of Chinese converts. Note that the literature also acknowledges the gap: "the role of the Chinese converts has been largely ignored". Thus, I am not sure how much I can improve per [[WP:NOR]] policy based on reliable sources available. |
|||
*" Dec. 8th 1939" - should read "December 8, 1939" or "8 December 1939" per [[MOS:DATE]]. Same with "Dec. 8, 1939" in the lead |
*" Dec. 8th 1939" - should read "December 8, 1939" or "8 December 1939" per [[MOS:DATE]]. Same with "Dec. 8, 1939" in the lead |
||
:: hanteng: done. {{diff|Chinese_Rites_controversy|542027858|542027468}} |
|||
*Was there any controversy after that one? |
*Was there any controversy after that one? |
||
:: hanteng: not sure if i understand your question here. Judging from the literature, Catholic Church seems to be fine with the status quo. I am not sure if the Protestant Church should be considered. It seems to me that the Protestants may still have issues with Chinese rites (see [https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ppUYRuuJyagJ:dcc.catholic.org.hk/Testing/pdf_files/students/CH110505a.pdf+Chinese+Rites+Controversy+impact+on+christian+chinese&hl=zh-TW&gl=tw&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShnOEjVvBLIq_igI0fSEi-28Ggs--LrZbKEv_Sk1vfIogKBpJsD0l0XXRJPfi4IbURl3IuEH7aqK4M0e1HKVXHiBqod__jq8UqhPKNBolAZYWV2jrKdyFmpEVZ-Q3YaiOlWZNWB&sig=AHIEtbTILJ8riJOiuMUWrtEzOErD1P038Q]). However, I do not think this should be included here in this entry since it is a bit off-topic for me. Of course, if any reliable sources can be found, they should be considered and then included. |
|||
*I would change "Jesuit Missionaries in China" to "Background" |
*I would change "Jesuit Missionaries in China" to "Background" |
||
:: hanteng: done. {{diff|Chinese_Rites_controversy|542027468|542026902}} |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
:: hanteng: Good point. Linked {{diff|Chinese_Rites_controversy|542023650|542023462}} |
|||
*You state eight popes considered the case, but I only see four mentioned. What were the other four pope's responses? |
*You state eight popes considered the case, but I only see four mentioned. What were the other four pope's responses? |
||
:: hanteng: The phrase "eight popes" was included from the source, but I see your point per [[WP:INTRO]]. Fixed here{{diff|Chinese_Rites_controversy|542002039|541928162}} with original quote of "eight popes" included in cite template, but not in the main text. |
|||
*"Joachim Bouvet" is not mentioned in the article. Was he notable to be included here? |
*"Joachim Bouvet" is not mentioned in the article. Was he notable to be included here? |
||
:: hanteng: indeed, fixed with other more relevant internal links for the see also section {{diff|Chinese_Rites_controversy|542041248|542040126}} |
|||
*"The controversy" -> probably "Controversy" per [[MOS:HEAD]] |
*"The controversy" -> probably "Controversy" per [[MOS:HEAD]] |
||
:: hanteng: indeed, fixed {{diff|Chinese_Rites_controversy|542023462|542023183}} |
|||
*In the references, p. should be changed to pp. if there are more than one page |
*In the references, p. should be changed to pp. if there are more than one page |
||
:: hanteng: Fixed here{{diff|Chinese_Rites_controversy|542006417|542005701}} {{diff|Chinese_Rites_controversy|542023183|542021583}} |
|||
*Ref 15 "Chinese astronomy and the Jesuit mission: an encounter of cultures": consider adding isbn, page, etc |
*Ref 15 "Chinese astronomy and the Jesuit mission: an encounter of cultures": consider adding isbn, page, etc |
||
:: hanteng: (Needham1958 fixed with OCLC and url). ISBN not available, use OCLC and url instead-- Fixed here {{diff|Chinese_Rites_controversy|542003207|542002746}} |
|||
*Ref 16, I can not see the mention of "Mantienne" in the further reading section. Same goes for some other similar footnotes.--[[User:Tomcat7|Tomcat]] '''''([[User talk:Tomcat7|7]])''''' 19:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC) |
*Ref 16, I can not see the mention of "Mantienne" in the further reading section. Same goes for some other similar footnotes.--[[User:Tomcat7|Tomcat]] '''''([[User talk:Tomcat7|7]])''''' 19:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
:: hanteng: Does this fix of multiple edits work? {{diff|Chinese_Rites_controversy|542006417|542003207}} Three references are isolated right after the refs. Two non-English references are listed as Further readings with appropriate language icons. |
|||
;hanteng's overall remark on the first batch of comments by [[User:Tomcat7|Tomcat]] |
|||
[[User:Tomcat7|Tomcat]]'s comments are to the point, detailed and helpful. I hope that I have addressed all of them satisfactorily. However, given the limitations on the coverage of the literature and [[WP:due]] policy, I am not sure if I can answer all the factual questions raised by [[User:Tomcat7|Tomcat]] based on the sources available (e.g. who are the eight popes and what were the Chinese response to Kangxi's ban?) Nonetheless, I appreciate [[User:Tomcat7|Tomcat]]'s questions and am open to any further suggestions to make it closer to the GA status. --<sub>([[:zh:User:Hanteng#.E7.A0.94.E7.A9.B6.E9.81.B8.E5.9C.96|comparing]]Chinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by [[User_talk:Hanteng|hanteng]])</sub> 13:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:14, 4 March 2013
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) 16:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Some issues with File:Ricci1.jpg. Lacking source information and author make it hard to check if the license is correct. As it is a cleaned version of File:MatteoRicciProminentConvert.jpg, it is fairly easy to add the author (Anthansius Kircher) and date (1667)--Tomcat (7) 16:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. It is done. Great suggestion! --(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng) 17:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- first batach
- I am not sure about the "[i.e., the Christian God]" note.
- hanteng: Me neither. Fixed with original quote with a clickable reference. [1]
- "but here they had a problem" - something like "but encountered a problem."
- hanteng: indeed, further improved with a footnote/citation
- I think more text is needed in some sections, eg "Kangxi's ban". I think more content should be added about the responses of other Chinese people, their response of Kangxi's opinion, etc.
- hanteng: I have tried to find additional reliable sources and expanded the article a bit, adding a few paragraphs and a section called "Qianlong's reinforcement"[2]. I have also found and included a sentence on the role of Chinese converts. Note that the literature also acknowledges the gap: "the role of the Chinese converts has been largely ignored". Thus, I am not sure how much I can improve per WP:NOR policy based on reliable sources available.
- " Dec. 8th 1939" - should read "December 8, 1939" or "8 December 1939" per MOS:DATE. Same with "Dec. 8, 1939" in the lead
- hanteng: done. [3]
- Was there any controversy after that one?
- hanteng: not sure if i understand your question here. Judging from the literature, Catholic Church seems to be fine with the status quo. I am not sure if the Protestant Church should be considered. It seems to me that the Protestants may still have issues with Chinese rites (see [4]). However, I do not think this should be included here in this entry since it is a bit off-topic for me. Of course, if any reliable sources can be found, they should be considered and then included.
- I would change "Jesuit Missionaries in China" to "Background"
- hanteng: done. [5]
- I would link Confucius in the lead
- hanteng: Good point. Linked [6]
- You state eight popes considered the case, but I only see four mentioned. What were the other four pope's responses?
- "Joachim Bouvet" is not mentioned in the article. Was he notable to be included here?
- hanteng: indeed, fixed with other more relevant internal links for the see also section [8]
- "The controversy" -> probably "Controversy" per MOS:HEAD
- hanteng: indeed, fixed [9]
- In the references, p. should be changed to pp. if there are more than one page
- Ref 15 "Chinese astronomy and the Jesuit mission: an encounter of cultures": consider adding isbn, page, etc
- hanteng: (Needham1958 fixed with OCLC and url). ISBN not available, use OCLC and url instead-- Fixed here [12]
- Ref 16, I can not see the mention of "Mantienne" in the further reading section. Same goes for some other similar footnotes.--Tomcat (7) 19:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- hanteng: Does this fix of multiple edits work? [13] Three references are isolated right after the refs. Two non-English references are listed as Further readings with appropriate language icons.
- hanteng's overall remark on the first batch of comments by Tomcat
Tomcat's comments are to the point, detailed and helpful. I hope that I have addressed all of them satisfactorily. However, given the limitations on the coverage of the literature and WP:due policy, I am not sure if I can answer all the factual questions raised by Tomcat based on the sources available (e.g. who are the eight popes and what were the Chinese response to Kangxi's ban?) Nonetheless, I appreciate Tomcat's questions and am open to any further suggestions to make it closer to the GA status. --(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng) 13:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)