Talk:Five Peaks Garden

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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Lightburst (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Five Peaks Garden

• ... that the Five Peaks Garden (pictured) in Suzhou, China dates to the Ming dynasty? Source: The garden was built during the Ming dynasty (1522-1566) by Ming painter Wen Boren
  • ALT1: ... that Chinese painter Wen Boren built a home in what is now the Five Peaks Garden (pictured) during the 16th century? Source: Wen Boren built a home in the garden, and after he moved a bureaucrat named Yang Cheng purchased the property. After Cheng, the property became developed with residential buildings. The property changed hands many times over the years until it became a restoration project in 1979 and in 1983
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/WVUP-CD

5x expanded by Sevilledade (talk), Lightburst (talk), CT55555 (talk), and Wil540 art (talk). Nominated by Lightburst (talk) at 00:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Five Peaks Garden; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Just saw this on the DYK nominations, and was kind of surprised when reading it. Not sure what's going on, exactly, but some of these descriptions/feature names seem to be from Lingering Garden (Celestial Hall) and Master of the Nets Garden (Library). Did someone just paraphrase text from the Henderson source without realizing that "Five Peaks" is in the name of different features in different places? Also, my Chinese is probably too rusty to make this distinction, but the sources appear to support the claim "it is said to have been built by Wen Boren" rather than "it was built by Wen Boren". Since my Chinese language ability isn't strong enough to make me confident in those distinctions, I'll leave the review to someone else, but I recommend clearing up the sourcing/claims before taking this any further in the process. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  • On second look, claiming Wen Boren built the garden might not fly, but the "Wen Boren built a house here" in ALT1 seems fine, so please disregard that part of my comment. That said, Wen Boren's entire life occurred in the 16th century, not the 15th, so that would need to be fixed for ALT1. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Indignant Flamingo: I corrected ALT1 to say 16th century and rather than squabble about the Henderson reference I have erased the sentences you have questioned. I do hope that you will stop following me someday and realize that I am here to improve the project. FYI: You have not participated in DYK for three years (since January 2020) so it is clear that your motives regarding this nomination are not altruistic. Have a great day! Lightburst (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Lightburst, thanks for removing the problem text. Have we even interacted in, like, years? I honestly don't recall. But I believe your DYK claim, since the last one I did was A Very Stable Genius, right before things got real weird, pandemic-wise, and contributing to DYK then definitely seemed like a low priority. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the claim about "Five Peaks Celestial Hall" aka "Nammu Hall" (it's "Nanmu" I think) is still there, though the cited source has that listed in the Lingering Garden section. If there's another one with the same name in this garden, maybe a supporting page number would help clarify that. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Indignant Flamingo: corrections were made - the Henderson Book about the gardens of Suzhou has been removed. New references were added to support information about the history and description of the garden and rock formations. The article is ready for a full review now. I also made significant edits to the Wen Boren article.Lightburst (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Just one more thing... The article says that the former name of this garden was Qiayin Shanfang. That's not what the cited source says. The cited source has two distinct paragraphs describing two different gardens: one paragraph is about Huiyin Garden and one paragraph is about this garden. According to the source, Huiyin Garden used to be called Qiayin Shanfang. Not this garden.
  Given the multiple source/text integrity issues identified so far, the reviewer really should be someone who can read Chinese. I've certainly seen "WP:AGF on sources" at DYK before, but the source use here needs a closer look than that. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Ready for a review now. Lightburst (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• 5x expanded when nominated (1948 characters) - previously 108 characters. Indignant Flamingo discovered some discrepancies above and most have been corrected. The name "Qiayin Shanfang" appears in two separate articles 1 2 as the original name for "Huiyin Garden - located in Nanxianzi. So I took the initiative and remove that mention from the article. I also removed a reference to a rockery designer/artist since that appeared to also be a different garden. Continuing the review, the article is neutral and uses the correct inline citations. The image is clear and free but perhaps does not render well at this size, I will leave that to a promotor. The hooks are cited and in the article. The article is neutral and free of plagiarism. The QPQ is done. It is now 1760 characters which still meets the requirement of 5x expanded. Good to go now. Bruxton (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Bruxton, before the article is on the front page, can we sort out the issue where our article says that two of the peaks have the same name ("Qingyun Peak" and "Qingyun Peak"), which is exactly what the cited "Min News" source says, but which conflicts with a different cited source (by "Suzhou Garfield") that claims that the peaks have different names, including "Optimus Prime"? Now, obviously that Optimus Prime source is machine translated, since the Chinese version of that article is available and it doesn't seem to mention any Autobots at all.
  But... if you can read Chinese without using Google Translate and have a bit more time, can you take a look at that original Chinese source and see what the names actually are? It's a bit confusing for me since there seems to be a story about stones from other places brought to this garden, and my Chinese isn't up to figuring out which of those stones are actually the "five peaks" there today. (And obviously machine translation isn't good enough for this sort of thing, look what happened to poor Optimus.) Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Indignant Flamingo Good catch! Why not be bold and edit the article. The article nominator does not seems to be very active and you seem to be good at finding problems. I will see what I can find about this latest issue and I will erase it if I cannot verify it. Bruxton (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

My pinging is atrocious. Indignant Flamingo Bruxton (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Why not be bold and edit the article. Because, Bruxton, if you scroll up you will see that the nominator has accused me of following them, and I've no interest in fueling whatever fire is burning inside them. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I read that. I just erased the bits about the peak names since I cannot see another source for that information and it was an obvious duplicated name in the article. I added that there is a "tea house". The article is now 1660 characters so it fits the criteria. Thanks for catching my mistake. Bruxton (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Bruxton, begging your patience here, I just noticed something else odd. Our article says "There is a pool of water and several buildings. The site also has boats and pavilions". And upon reflection, given the size of the garden and buildings already described, I couldn't quite visualize where any actual boats would fit. So I looked at the cited source, which has (under the main description) a list of the garden's features separated by category. One of the categories is "建筑" (basically, architecture/buildings). A Google Translate of that page/list might get you to the English sentence "the site also has boats and pavilions" but because the part in the Chinese source that translates to "boat" is listed under "architecture/buildings", my guess is that it's actually referring to a style of building/pavilion that's called, I guess in English it would be "dry boat"? Meaning, there's a building that kind of looks like a boat on land. Not an actual boat (or "boats") in the plain English sense. But again, could be wrong. Could you check that, since it's another possible source/text integrity issue?
  Separately, though this isn't necessarily a DYK review issue, there's still a promotional link to a tour company in the external links. It's malformed, but still resolves to the tour company site. Probably shouldn't have free advertising linked from the front page. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the positive edits Bruxton. I appreciate the help getting this article through DYK. I will try to address the latest wall of text and if that does not work I will withdraw this nomination. Thanks again! Lightburst (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

ping me for concerns. I have not been editing very much lately but I will check back. I erased the questioned link in external and I have removed all reference to boats and pavilions, and I changed the sentence to "There is a pool of water and several buildings". Thanks! Lightburst (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• The claim in our article that "The garden was built during the Ming dynasty (1522-1566) by painter Wen Boren" (my emphasis) remains unverified. The cited source in the article says it was built in the Ming Dynasty, and Wen Boren built a house there. In the absence of other evidence this might just be a meaningless semantic distinction, except that it conflicts with other cited sources, making it a WP:V issue. For example, the snippet from Google Translate quoted from a different source to support the proposed main hook in this nomination leaves out an important phrase from the Chinese original that is literally something like "as it is handed down" but could be more clearly translated as "according to legend". And another source cited elsewhere, "Min News", makes a different claim for who built the garden, while acknowledging the additional story/legend about Wen Boren.
  Again, the sources agree that he built a house there, but the sources do not verify anything more than a handed-down story, one among multiple origin stories, about him building the garden. Again, this doesn't materially affect the proposed hook (despite the unintentionally misleading quote snippet), but it is a WP:V issue for the article, making it one of the "normal encyclopedic issues" that fall under DYK review. Not sure who to ping at this point but I'm confident there will be eyes on this nomination regardless. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a very short 1600 character article, and Indignant Flamingo stated "I'll leave the review to someone else" but then went on to type 6069 characters in this nomination. It is clear Wen Boren built the garden. The Suzhou Gardens and Greening Administration has said the same. It (Wufeng Garden) was first built in the Jiajing period of the Ming Dynasty (1522-1566), and the painter Wen Boren (1502-1575) built a private house here. And LaiTimes The winding rockery, all built of lake stone masonry, is an old object of the Ming Dynasty and a treasure carefully demarcated by Wen Boren. Our article followd the RS regarding Wen Boren. All of the items which were called out piecemeal were changed or removed from the article, but the part about Wen Boren building the garden is supported by RS. Lightburst (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• The article is certainly shorter now that we've pulled out a lot of the false information in it, and it definitely takes some effort to disentangle source/text integrity issues when the article was constructed with a reliance on Google Translate.
  Anyway, setting aside the Chinese original (retrievable by removing the "en/" from the URL), even the Min News source English version says Wufeng Garden was built during the Jiajing period of the Ming Dynasty by Changzhou Shangshu Yang Cheng, commonly known as "Yangjiayuan". Is that source wrong or unclear or referring to something different? I'm perfectly willing to believe that the source is unreliable, since both Lai Times and Min News seem to be reprinting/paraphrasing their (Chinese) text from Baidu Baike, the big Chinese wiki that WP:RSP consensus says is unreliable. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The Suzhou Gardens and Greening Administration is reliable and confirms that Wen Boren built his home in the garden. Will this be the last of your concerns? You said above "I'm confident there will be eyes on this nomination regardless." What is it that you want to happen? As in exactly what? Lightburst (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• that Wen Boren built his home in the garden. Exactly. His home, not that he built the garden. And once again, the other Suzhou government source cited in the support for the main hook says, in Chinese, that "according to legend" 相传, he built the garden. I suppose if you change "The garden was built during the Ming dynasty (1522-1566) by painter Wen Boren." to "The garden was built during the Ming dynasty (1522-1566). According to legend, it was built by painter Wen Boren." that would be consistent with both Suzhou government sources.
  By "eyes on the nomination regardless" I meant the plain meaning, which is that both you and Bruxton are likely to have the page on your watchlists, so I don't have to guess the right person to ping. What I want to happen is for all of the source/text integrity issues to be purged from this article, ideally before it hits the front page. I believe that you want the same thing. If I see something else, I'll say something here. Thanks for being responsive. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Lol, Thanks for letting me know that you might have more concerns later. I withdraw this nomination. Lightburst (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)