Template:Did you know nominations/Guang yi ji
- 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 22:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Guang yi ji
- ... that Dutch sinologist J. J. M. de Groot called the Great Book of Marvels "one of the most valuable sources for the study of Chinese folklore"? Source: Dudbridge 1995, p. 16.
Created by Kingoflettuce (talk). Self-nominated at 23:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Guang yi ji; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- I'll review this. The article fits age and length requirements. It does not appear to have any copyvio or sourcing issues. I don't have access to Dudbridge's text, but accepting on good faith; Hook is interesting enough, and is cited in-article. QPQ checks out. My only concern is that there is quite a bit of over-citing in the penultimate paragraph; since the cites all seem to return to Dudbridge 1995, couldn't the whole paragraph just be cited as "Dudbridge 1995, pp 177-236"? A wide spread, but certainly easier to parse than over a dozen citations to the same section of the same book all right in a row.
Generalissima (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hey there, thanks for the review but I respectfully don't think it's a case of overciting and would prefer to leave the cites as they are. It might be more aesthetically pleasing (if that's what you mean by "parse") but it would render the citation kind of pointless and also somewhat compromise the text-source integrity. For whichever specific story the reader might possibly be interested in (but whose details unfortunately have to be omitted here for reasons of space) the current citations help to directly lead the reader to the relevant part of Dudbridge's book (and there's quite a lot of detail for each story), rather than have them sift thru a spread of 60-odd pages. Put it another way, the citations would be the same as now if the stories were presented in a table instead. I would generally be very cautious about citing such a wide spread; 2 or 3 pages is of course tolerable but anything more is simply unhelpful to the reader IMO. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 17:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh my gosh, I totally forgot to get back to this. Yeah, that's a fair enough point. Everything is good to go. Generalissima (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Generalissima, please note that the official icons listed above the edit window are the only ones you should be using (and are what the bots that move nominations and determine whether they've passed or not look for), but also that the icon should go first on a line, so it's easy for a potential promoter to see. Please try again. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oop, my bad. Fixed, so sorry about that! Generalissima (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Generalissima, please note that the official icons listed above the edit window are the only ones you should be using (and are what the bots that move nominations and determine whether they've passed or not look for), but also that the icon should go first on a line, so it's easy for a potential promoter to see. Please try again. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
