Talk:Chinese Rites controversy/GA1: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
pass |
|||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
#It is '''reasonably well written'''. |
#It is '''reasonably well written'''. |
||
#:a ''(prose)'': {{GAList/check|}} b ''([[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|MoS]] for [[WP:LEAD|lead]], [[WP:LAYOUT|layout]], [[WP:WTW|word choice]], [[WP:WAF|fiction]], and [[Wikipedia:Embedded list|lists]])'': {{GAList/check|}} |
#:a ''(prose)'': {{GAList/check|aye}} b ''([[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|MoS]] for [[WP:LEAD|lead]], [[WP:LAYOUT|layout]], [[WP:WTW|word choice]], [[WP:WAF|fiction]], and [[Wikipedia:Embedded list|lists]])'': {{GAList/check|aye}} |
||
#:: |
#:: |
||
#It is '''factually accurate''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]]'''. |
#It is '''factually accurate''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]]'''. |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
#:: |
#:: |
||
#It is '''broad in its coverage'''. |
#It is '''broad in its coverage'''. |
||
#:a ''([[WP:Scope|major aspects]])'': {{GAList/check|}} b ''([[WP:LENGTH|focused]])'': {{GAList/check|aye}} |
#:a ''([[WP:Scope|major aspects]])'': {{GAList/check|aye}} b ''([[WP:LENGTH|focused]])'': {{GAList/check|aye}} |
||
#:: |
#:: |
||
#It follows the '''[[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] policy'''. |
#It follows the '''[[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] policy'''. |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
#:: |
#:: |
||
#'''Overall''': |
#'''Overall''': |
||
#:''Pass/Fail'': {{GAList/check| |
#:''Pass/Fail'': {{GAList/check|aye}} |
||
#:: <!-- Template:GAList --> |
#:: <!-- Template:GAList --> |
||
Latest revision as of 09:38, 6 March 2013
GA Review
[edit]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):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- 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):
- 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)