Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Taoism/archive1

Taoism

Inherently readable, referenced, great article. --PopUpPirate 23:32, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

A couple of relatively minor objections. First, since Pinyin is the preferred romanization system, shouldn't the article be titled "Dao" rather than "Tao"? Second, there seems to be a rather random mix of Pinyin and Wade Giles in the article. Third, the tone and style verge into the chatty in some areas: academic writing prefers to avoid terms like "I" and "we" ("one does" rather than "we do" is preferrable). The Chinese character dao really should be explained closer to the beginning of the article, and does it not still mean "road" or "way" in Chinese as it does in Japanese? And lastly, and most nitpickily, the image of the character is a bit large... Otherwise looks good. Exploding Boy 07:07, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Regarding Tao/Dao, doesn't Wikipedia use the most common name in article titles? The Google test upholds using Tao over Dao, as would (I assume) any newspaper headline search. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Tao" is far more common in Western countries. Users of the en wiki are more likely to search for "Tao". The name should be kept. Phils 13:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Taoism is more common. see Daoism-Taoism Romanization issue --Ji ang 17:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Concerns addressed : image size fixed by someone else, I've copyedited it all and changed some wording. Tao is imo preferable to Dao, also. --PopUpPirate 20:44, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
minor objection: "overview" should not be a section heading. the lead section is the overview. Come up with some other label, merge the overview section with the lead, merge the overview section with the rest of the article, or do both--Jiang 04:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree - overview section has been integrated in other parts of the article, yep much more suitable mixed in. --PopUpPirate 20:44, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Fixed the I/we problem (we --> one). It is a good article though. With some further tightening would make a great feature. Sunray 10:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]