Talk:Chinese Rites controversy/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) 16:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
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)[reply]

Thank you. It is done. Great suggestion! --_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 17:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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?

hanteng: The phrase "eight popes" was included from the source, but I see your point per WP:INTRO. Fixed here[7] 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?

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

hanteng: Fixed here[10] [11]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]