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 Desertarun (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
... that Juren was a rank awarded in imperial China for those who passed the provincial level of the civil examination system?[1]
ALT1:... that in 1630, less than 2.6% of 49,200 or so juren candidates was awarded that rank? Source: WP:AGF; someone with access should check ch. 3, "Circulation of Ming-Qing Elites" in Elman 2013
ALT2:... that in 1630, less than 3% of candidates were awarded the rank of juren, the second highest civil rank in imperial China? Source: "provincial examinations 'gold went to the provincial graduate [juren], and [only] silver to the palace graduate [jinshi],' because the competition was much keener in provinces. By 1630, about 49,200 candidates empire-wide, 45 percent less than in the 'High Qing,' triennially competed for 1,278 provincial degrees. Only 2.6 percent would succeed" Elman, 2013 and Bai & Jia, 2016, Figure 1, p. 683
Created/expanded by Qwj5377 (talk). Self-nominated at 06:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC).
@Qwj5377: I understand that you are a relatively new user so welcome and thanks for contributing. This is not a review but just a comment. Please provide a hook for this article per WP:DYKHOOK. This can be an interesting fact from this article (supported by a reference) that would encourage the reader to want to read more by clicking. Cowlibob (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Cowlibob: Thank you so much for this! I'm not too sure I've done the template right. Could you have a look now? Let me know if I still am missing something. Thank you! Qwj5377 (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Not a review, either; just wanted to suggest another hook. Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 04:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Interesting: - I prefer ALT1 and have suggested a slightly different wording in ALT2
QPQ: None required.
Overall: I confirm that the Elman, 2013 citation is accurate as is Bai & Jia, 2016. QPQ not needed -- new user. Qwj5377 This looks good to me with ALT2 as the preferred hook. QuakerSquirrel (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I prefer ALT1 and have suggested a slightly different wording in ALT2
I confirm that the Elman, 2013 citation is accurate as is Bai & Jia, 2016. QPQ not needed -- new user. Qwj5377 This looks good to me with ALT2 as the preferred hook. QuakerSquirrel (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)