Talk:Annunciation Seminary, Bailu

Did you know nomination

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 BorgQueen (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that this abandoned seminary in Pengzhou, Sichuan, collapsed during the 2008 Sichuan earthquake upon its 100th year of completion? Source: "Les travaux débutent en 1895 pour ne s'achever qu'en 1908","... sa destruction lors d'un puissant tremblement de terre, le 12 mai 2008" [1]
  • ALT1: ... that this abandoned seminary in Pengzhou, Sichuan, collapsed during the 2008 Sichuan earthquake upon its 100th year of completion, and was not rebuilt until 2016? Source: "Les travaux débutent en 1895 pour ne s'achever qu'en 1908","... sa destruction lors d'un puissant tremblement de terre, le 12 mai 2008", "... l'inauguration est prévue pour fin 2016" [2]
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: My third DYK submission.

Created by TheLonelyPather (talk). Self-nominated at 03:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Annunciation Seminary (Pengzhou); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @TheLonelyPather: Hello and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your created article is informative and well-referenced. The DYK is interesting and I prefer the initial version of the hook (not ALT1). The article was created today (12 March 2023) and has nearly 9,000 characters of prose, so the article is new enough and has over 1,500 characters as required by the DYK procedure. The hook is correct and is described in the article with proper references. The provided quotes in this DYK nomination from a supporting source are actually presented in it and I checked the French text using translator for verification of the content. The image is freely licensed. Assuming good faith, the QPQ is not yet required as this is TheLonelyPather's third DYK submission after this and this (confirmation: user page). -- Pofka (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you, User: Pofka, for your detailed review! –TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Annunciation Seminary (Pengzhou)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The person who loves reading (talk · contribs) 19:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   Some grammar mistakes. However, grammar mistakes are fixed.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead sections summarize the article well. No words to watch are contained in this article. Layout is good.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   The reference section contains a list of sources.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   Not sure whether they are reliable sources or not. Through the explanation, sources in this article are all reliable sources.

   c. (OR):

   Checked some sources I can access. Sources verify he article text. No original research is contained.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   No copyright violation. Online tool result: 8.3% violation unlikely

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   Notable people might not be included in this article. However, other major aspects are covered. Through discussion, Notable people and cultural differences can be covered.

   b. (focused):

   No unnecessary details are found. This article is a short article, but covered the naming and history.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   This article is neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   All freely-licensed images.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   First and second images are crucial to the article. Other images are placed in the correct position, with suitable captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   This article meets all 6 criteria. I'm happy to pass this article. This article writes about one of seminaries in China, and covered all major aspects of this article, such as the history of the seminary, the destruction, and the protection. This article doesn't contain any more grammar mistakes for now. This article has no copyright violation, is neutral, and stable, according to my opinion and the Did You Know nomination of this article. This article's images are all free images, and are all necessary and crucial to this article. Images all have suitable captions. This article also follows the Manual of Style. I also check other similar good articles and find that they are all very similar. In summary, this article is a good article and should be listed. Thank you for bringing this article to good article status!

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Comments

• Grammar mistakes:

1. However, it was later named a Major Historical and Cultural Site Protected at the National Level of China, and despite being damaged in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, it was restored by 2016. "by" --> "in"
2. The seminary is known in many different names across several languages. "in" --> "by"
3. The walls were built by local bricks, but the beams, columns and other components were made of wood. "by" --> "with"
4. In 2004, the site's protection level was raised to the province-level. "province-level" --> "province level"
5. Gao Wei suggested that the complex could be turned into a cultural and recreational center, a philanthropic educational center, a historical museum, or return to its religious purposes. "return" --> "a return"

• Thank you. I have fixed these grammar mistakes. For #5, I fixed it to be "Gao Wei suggested that the complex could be turned into a cultural and recreational center, a philanthropic educational center, a historical museum, or it could continue to serve religious purposes." I hope this is all right. –TheLonelyPather (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! The person who loves reading (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Lead section:

1. Short description and English variety are recommended, but no need to add for good article status.

• Major aspects

1. Does notable people include in the major aspects of the article?

• Second opinion needed

1. Are sources in this article all reliable sources?

• I am happy to explain two major sources of my article: the "The investigation study of repair and protection about Lingbaoxiuyuan.Pengzhou" and "Les Missions de Chine et du Japon". The first one is a master's thesis on the repair and protection of this seminary from Sichuan Normal University in China. The second one is a 1917 review of the French missions in China and Japan published by the French Lazarists. I did not find any first-hand stuff from the priests who built / taught at the seminary, so the 1917 review is the closest thing I can find. –TheLonelyPather (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

OK. Through this explanation, I understand that sources are cited in this article are all reliable sources. The person who loves reading (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

2. Are Cultural influences and notable people needed to be covered?

• My personal opinion is that these two sections are not required but it is nice to include them. For example, in this article, a person from this seminary actually exists on the Chinese Wikipedia. It would be nice to include him there in the "notable people" section in case someone writes an article of him in English. As for the "cultural influences" section, it was just a random finding during my search. –TheLonelyPather (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! It would be nice if you can expand this section. However, this is not required because I checked other good articles but they don't include these sections. The person who loves reading (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It's better if this article contains a section about its significance (including cultural influences). However, it's not a requirement for the good article status. Just in case you want to promote it to featured article status. The person who loves reading (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

Thanks

Hi TheLonelyPather, just want to thank you again for creating a GOOD ARTICLE! Cheers! --Uriel1022 (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for renaming

@TheLonelyPather: I think "Annunciation Seminary, Bailu" could be a better title, any thoughts? --Uriel1022 (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree. At the time of page creation, I was still fresh to the MOS. Will move now. TheLonelyPather (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Uriel1022 move completed. TheLonelyPather (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)