Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chinese classifier/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 6 September 2009 [1].

Chinese classifier

[edit]
Nominator(s): rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I nominated this for FAC in early July (first FAC) and it was not promoted, I think mainly because of ongoing editing—my discussion with another user at the FAC became more of an unofficial peer review, so it was probably correct to not promote it until things had finished. Since then, however, that review has finished, and it has also been reviewed by another editor; thus, since I came to it, this article has had reviews/comments from Akerbeltz (here and around), Ricardiana (GAN), H1nkles (PR), Kwamikagami (old FAC and here), and an extensive copyedit/review from GeometryGirl (this and subsequent sections), as well as numerous copyedits from me. Now it is a good resource for all kinds of readers, both as a useful introduction for lay readers and beginning Chinese students, and as a detailed analysis and comprehensive bibliography for readers with a strong background in linguistics and/or Chinese language. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: A rather didactic tone is apparent with phrases such as "To summarize," and "Note that," early in the article. Can these be removed? I will try and comment further later, and will do light copyedits as I read through. First impression: great work in developing the article to this stage. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Removed those two--thanks for the catch. I don't think it was me who put those in, but the article history is too long to go searching, and it doesn't really matter anyway--the point is perfecting what's there now :). I will give it another read-through to try to see if there are any other 'didactic' bits other than those. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks), but there are some areas where it can be improved:

  • For File:OracleShell.JPG the alt text duplicates the caption (see WP:ALT#Repetition). Also, since the image contains prominent text it would be helpful if the alt text transcribed it (see WP:ALT#Tricky lettering). Can you turn it into Unicode?
  • For File:Ma Lin 001.jpg the alt text contains text "(1246, Ma Lin)" that cannot be verified just from the image, and needs to be removed or reworded; see WP:ALT#Verifiability.
  • Similarly, File:CCTV Building.jpg has alt text containing "China Central TV tower" which needs to be removed or reworded.
  • The phrases "blue sky in the background" is not-that-relevant detail and can be removed.

Eubulides (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • File:OracleShell.JPG: the text is ancient Chinese and, as far as I know, does not have unicode for most of it—other than the few characters that are nearly the same as their present-day characters, like 早, most of these cannot be typed. I don't know how crucial it is, though; judging by the link you gave to Purely Decorative Images in this edit summary, it seems to me that either all of these images qualify as "purely decorative", or none do. The text on this oracle bone inscription is certainly not really relevant to the point being made; it's mostly just a decoration to break up the prose.
    • File:Ma Lin 001.jpg: Removed the text "(1246, Ma Lin)".
    • File:CCTV Building.jpg: both bits removed. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: This is by no means an easy article to read, but for those with patience (and a curiosity for the unfamiliar) it is worth the effort. I have read about two-thirds; my comments are mainly prose quibbles.

  • Count-classifiers and mass-classifiers
    • "Within the range of mass-classifiers, authors have proposed subdivisions..." Who are these "authors"?
    • "...go so far as to propose..." is a bit POV-ish. Suggest delete the "go so far as to" and replace "propose" with "suggest"
      • Removed "so so far as"... I think 'propose' is better than 'suggest', though, since it is just a theory and, like most syntax theories, is pretty difficult to prove or disprove independently. (Then again, I suppose most of what's here is theory as well.)rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verbal classifers: again the hint of POV – who describes Li and Thompson's work as "seminal"?
    • Li & Thompson (1981) and Chao (1968) are pretty much the 'Bibles' of Chinese linguistics, and almost every article or book on Chinese linguistics written since then cites both of them. (That's not to say they're right; they are, of course, outdated, and we often spend more of our time arguing against them than for them... but they are still generally seen as a starting point, at least, especially in English-language publications.) That being said, the word "seminal" is not necessary here, so I've removed it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relation to nouns
    • This sentence: "The Chinese languages each have a large number of nominal classifiers" is virtually an exact repeat of the opening sentence of paragraph 2 under the "Types" heading.
    • This sentence: "The specific factors that govern which classifiers are paired with which nouns have been a subject of debate among linguists" could do with a citation (which might enable those interested to observe the nature of the debate).
      • This, again, is basically a mini-introduction/summary: since the entire section is about this debate and has about 25 footnotes (35&ndash60 or so), I didn't see a need for an over-general reference at the beginning. If one is necessary, though, the Zhang (2007) article is a pretty good review (it's already cited a bunch of times throughout the section anyway). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories and prototypes
    • Several terms in this section have quote marks, e.g. "classical", "conditions", "criteria", "prototype" etc. It is not clear why this should be so.
      • Removed a few; kept "family resemblance" because it's Tai's wording and not mine, and it's not necessarily an everyday word. (Another option, though, would be to remove the quotes and link the term, since it's jargon from linguistic philosophy); kept "classical" because that word in particular is used in a lot of the sources to describe that theory, and I could imagine a reader somewhere down the road going "what's so 'classic' about this?", so I figured I should keep it in quotes to attribute it to its sources. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs
  • Neutralization
    • "It has been noted as early as the 1940s..." "It was noted..." And "as early as the 1940s" reads oddly in the context of languages, which typically develop over thousands of years. I think the whole sentence could do with a bit of treatment, and suggest: "It was noted in the 1940s that the use of 个 was increasing, with a tendency towards replacing specific classifiers with it."
      • While languages develop over thousands of years, they can change in the blink of an eye (look at how fast new slang words can become mainstream), so the reason I used "it was noted" is that this may have been a phenomenon that happened at that time—we have no way of knowing if this kind of neutralization happened in spoken language before Lu (I think that's who it was) wrote about it in the 40s, and thus I didn't want to suggest that it was a speech phenomenon that's been around for hundreds of years. As for "as early as", I had that in there to emphasize this is a speech style that has been around for decades, it's not just recent 'bad grammar' (and, also, to emphasize that this is still going on today--it wasn't just pointed out back then and stopped, but people still talk this way).
  • Variation in usage
    • Several sentences in this section (and others) begin "For example..." Readability is helped if there is some variety in expression; "An example of this is...", or "By way of illustration,..." are possibly ways of varying "For example..."
      • Removed two of them; I think "by way of illustration" is a bit awkward, but it's probably better than over-repeating "for example".
    • "...the lexical meaning of a noun." What is the "lexical" meaning (as distinct from the plain "meaning")?

I will complete my reading over the next couple of days or so. I would very much like to see some analysis from an editor who has some expertise in this area, to see if my instincts about the article quality are confirmed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments; I'll leave responses above (I find it easier to leave responses directly under the comments, but if you don't like this format let me know and I'll refactor myself). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have emailed Kathleen Ahrens asking for an expert review. I will let everyone know if she replies. 92.149.7.218 (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm reiterating my support from last time, especially as I think the article has improved since then (the addition of further examples, etc.) As a student of Mandarin, I find this to be easily the best and most thorough treatment of a part of the Chinese language that is notoriously difficult to learn and to explain. I believe this article meets all of the FA criteria and is a remarkably useful discussion of a remarkably difficult subject. Ricardiana (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found that Morev's paper is available at http://sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf8/morev2000afterthoughts.pdf Maybe we could add links to other online papers. 92.149.7.218 (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost none of the others are; Shie, T'sou, and maybe Allan are freely available, but the rest I got through my library or bought. Shie and Morev used to be linked in the article, but I decided it looks ugly to have just a few articles linked and the rest not. I think the readers who have enough interest to go beyond this article and read the papers themselves, are probably also the people who know how to find those papers (through a library, etc.). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. Freely available papers should be linked; it is both an invitation to read the source and an easy way to gain time for the interested reader. Also, current references 24, 27, 35, 37, 52, 54, 55, etc. are lacking page number.
        • Those references are lacking page numbers on purpose, because for those parts the reference is the entire paper (ie, the whole paper, including the abstract, is about whatever thing is being discussed there in the prose). As for linking papers... I can dig up the links and add them, but I guess first I'd like to wait and see what other people looking have to say. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So for example the sentence "Likewise, while long things that are flexible (such as ropes) often take 条 (條) tiáo, long things that are rigid (such as sticks) take 根 gēn, unless they are also round (like pens or cigarettes), in which case in some dialects they take 枝 zhī." is referenced by two whole papers?
  • What about "and function (tools, vehicles, machines, etc.)"? Is that the subject of a whole paper?
  • All reference without page number should be checked to confirm that they indeed don't need a page number. 92.149.7.218 (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went through last night, checked, and added a few page numbers where they didn't seem inappropriate; the ones that are left without page numbers are, by my standard at least, just the ones that don't need them:
      • Tzeng, Chen & Hung 1991 (currently ref #56): citing a statement about aphasics' overuse of 个. That paper is entirely about aphasic classifier production and this is their main finding, it's discussed throughout the whole paper and is in the abstract.
      • Ahrens 1994 (currently ref #59): citing a statement about patterns that govern overuse of 个. Same thing, this is the main point of the paper and is in the abstract (if I cited page numbers for it, I would be citing something like a 15-page range anyway).
      • Tai 1994 (currently ref #62): citing a statement about how classifier-noun pairings vary across speakers. The bulk of this paper is an inventory of kinds of classifiers and how they are used in different speaker populations.
      • Li 2000 (currently used in ref #66 and #71): in all cases, used to cite statements about when and why speakers may choose to use a bare NP rather than a classifier phrase (or vice versa). In all instances, this is the main finding of the paper and is in the abstract.
      • Peyraube 1991 (currently used in ref #86): citing a statement that throughout history classifiers were not always mandatory and not always used. Like Tai 1994, this paper is basically an inventory of historical periods and, for the most part, examples of how little classifiers were used; trying to cite individual pages would result in citing almost every page of the paper anyway.
    • I believe that's all of them. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


My final comments: Just a few points picked up in the later sections of the article:-

Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified support: All issues raised by me have been addressed satisfactorily. The "qualified" simply means that I would like to see a comment from an expert in the subject that says "This is OK" or words to that effect. On the principle that no news is good news, if no such expert is forthcoming in a few days I'll remove the qualification anyway. I am really impressed by the effort that has gone into this article, and certainly see it as potentially among Wikipedia's best work. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral I think this is a very good reference on Chinese classifiers; the best that I know of. However, each time I give it a read I find issues (listed on the talk page), suggesting that much improvement is in order. Also I haven't had a chance to review the references fully, and I don't know of anyone who did the job other than Rjanag who put them up in the first place. When I return to Cambridge I will have access to all the sources and I will check every sentence for appropriate and correct citation; I will also verify that the sources have not been plagiarised. GeometryGirl (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will be getting to your next batch of talkpage comments this afternoon, hopefully. Please keep in mind, though, that when there is always more than one way to say something, and when an article has gone through as many rounds of copyediting as this has it's inevitable that editors will always find things that they wouldn't mind 'tweaking', which doesn't necessarily mean it's all bad writing—it just means that everyone has their own preferences about how things should be written. I am grateful for your continued comments because they have been helpful; at the same time, though, I just wanted to emphasize that this doesn't necessarily mean that massive "improvement" is needed... rather, it could just mean the article has reached a "quality plateau". Even in the most developed featured articles, everyone will still find phrases that they'd like changed here and there. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, support Perfection is probably not the goal at FAC after all. Rjanag is surprisingly efficient in dealing with issues brought up so I trust that - even with a star - the article will be open to extended improvement. (I'm also curious to see the potential effects of being on the main page.) GeometryGirl (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is great. There are a few things that need fine tuning, but then again, I think just about every article needs fine tuning. One thing that should be adressed though is the red links in the Classifier words subsection. Will there ever be a page on Lü Shuxiang? I doubt it, but someone found it needed to be a link. Same with the two books. This is aesthetic, but I happen to not like the look of red links, especially those that will never be linked to pages. Nezzadar (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the redlinks in that section, GeometryGirl and I only created redlinks for pages that have a corresponding article on zh-wiki. I don't know about Li Jinxi, but I do know Lü Shuxiang is a giant in the field of Chinese linguistics (his book is cited about as often, and on the same level, as Chao 1968 and Li & Thompson 1981) and ought to have an article here—that might even go onto my to-do list. Same for the books; these have corresponding articles on zh-wiki. To be honest, I am more concerned about the redlinked English names than the chinese ones (Ahrens, Erbaugh, Li and Tai (ok, those two are Chinese names, but English-language publications); while these people's papers are all widely cited in this topic and they all have made major contributions to the field, I'm not sure if they meet Wikipedia's standard for notability, and if I personally were going to start an article on any of them I don't know where I'd start. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The images File:Denimjeans2.JPG, File:Ulm2-midsize.jpg, File:Garden bench 001.jpg, File:Frecklesmule.jpg are used in violation of their licenses, each of which requires the license to be displayed with the images. As these images are not clickable, the license is not displayed properly; their use is therefore a copyright violation. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Chinese_classifier/archive2&oldid=1074635489"