Wikipedia:Peer review/Chinese characters/archive1

Chinese characters

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit it as my first FAC. This is a multifaceted subject with diverse challenges in writing a stellar encyclopedia article for a general English language audience. The subject is deeply important to me, and it's been really rewarding trying to weave concepts together and split them apart, but I think I'm approaching the limits of my own brain to think new thoughts about it on its own.

I am particularly interested in how the article reads to people who have a minimum of exposure to the subject—people who have never even heard a word of spoken Chinese somehow. People who have never seen a passer-by's unfortunate tattoo. I want my explanations of concepts from zero to be useful for everybody. How clear are the explanations of cultural, historical, academic, and technical terms to you? Do I explain everything in the right order? I would also like to make the subject burn with interest for some folks out there like reading about it has done for me.

I also crave any and all observations from those on the other end of the spectrum, especially regarding potential scope hurdles—how might we get from broad to comprehensive coverage without lurching above 10k words, the arbitrary upper limit I've set for myself? At what point are we off-topic when discussing aspects of spoken rather than specifically written language? Is this article something of a superset of Written Chinese, or should it be rebalanced as to better reflect the heterogenous peoples involved over time? How much space should we devote to aspects that are specific to particular languages or historical periods? Should we create even more sub-articles to cram into Category:Chinese characters? Can I figure out how to make cooler graphics or tables? Anything and everything to make this the best article of its kind.

祝福你们都！ Remsense诉 19:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles listed there. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'd be happy to! Thank you for the nudge. Remsense诉 03:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

Ping me if I don't get to this in a week. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Just wanted to bump in and ping you.^ Arconning (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I promise I'll get to this soon. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries in the slightest! While I would very much like to hear your insights, it's not like I've chipped in yet at the Genghis Khan FAC like I've promised... Remsense诉 14:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)On a quick glance, some points of pedantry:

Reference formats should be standardised.
Some captions are quite lengthy—try and keep MOS:CAPTION ("should be succinct") in mind. If they say things that aren't in the article, or if it's not immediately clear what references support the caption, citations should be added (e.g. File:Variants_of_Kangxi_radical_213_'turtle'.svg) in "Variant characters".
I know that I'm probably the only editor or reader who would pick up on this, but Hung 1951 is quite long and involved, so specific page numbers would be helpful.
It might just be my screen, but there seems to be a little MOS:SANDWICHing at the start of the "Methods of writing" section.
In the "Vietnamese" section:
- Paragraph is a little long, might want to split.
- Is the image WP:OR? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formats should be standardised

Oh, how so? I've spent a ton of time preening the references in the article, and I'm not sure which aspect you could be referring to.

Some citations use ref tags, others sfns, and I'm not entirely sure why there's a division.

Hung 1951

Page 481 is specifically cited, I think?

Oh yes, sorry. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've finally knuckled down and sorted the bib completely (wow!) All books and journal articles are in the works cited, save for the primary sources which have been given their own section. Thoughts? Remsense诉 18:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remsense诉 14:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to come (I promise). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

Interested and with little exposure to even spoken Chinese, although a family member was born in China. I'll comment as I read, and that will be in portions. Only afterwards can I give justice to the lead, and questions such as order and depth. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I wonder how I will get to understand "left-to-right" coming first while the pic caption seems to support top-to-bottom.
I think that of the two following navboxes (with the same title), the second might be more useful for people like me, so might perhaps better come first.

Structural analysis

I wonder if the number of 3500 characters should appear somewhere in the lead, also the Shuowen Jiezi

Pictographs

"evident what thing was originally being depicted by a pictograph" - this looks needlessly complex to me, I'd just write "evident what was originally depicted".
repetition of "sometimes"

Loangraphs

"with abstract grammatical particles such as 之 and 其" - that remains abstract to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History

We have here quotes, and I don't don't know if they have be quotes, and - if yes - where they come from, and that rather before the quotes.

Traditional invention narrative

Can the knotting be given some dating? (Because otherwise, 3rd millenium is what the section mentions, which is earlier than the 7th millenium in the following one.
"I Ching" should have a non-breaking space.
"grain rained down from the sky ..." It is not clear - being a new sentence - that this probably also falls under the "it is said" legend clause.

Layout

"Word boundaries are generally not indicated with spaces. Western influence also resulted in the generalised use of punctuation being widely adopted in print ..." - I wonder what the "also" refers to.

Methods of writing

I wish there were fewer images, to not sandwich text and displace a header. Easiest solution: all images right.

Got to header Vocabulary, need a break. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remsense, before I continue, can you give me some replies to let me see if what I said is clear? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow Gerda, I am so sorry to have left you hanging like this! I didn't see this at all, thank you so much for taking the time to look over my work! Will reply ASAP. Remsense ‥ 论 21:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right! Sorry about the further delay argh! If I didn't directly respond to a point, I'm probably going to give it a straightforward fix without further discussion being required.

I wonder how I will get to understand "left-to-right" coming first while the pic caption seems to support top-to-bottom.
Writing direction is explained briefly in § Structure §§ Layout—does this seem sufficient, or is more up-front explanation needed?
I think that of the two following navboxes (with the same title), the second might be more useful for people like me, so might perhaps better come first.
It's hard to juggle these three infoboxes. I'll think more on this.
Structural analysis: I wonder if the number of 3500 characters should appear somewhere in the lead, also the Shuowen Jiezi
Oh, you're probably right!
Pictographs: "evident what thing was originally being depicted by a pictograph" - this looks needlessly complex to me, I'd just write "evident what was originally depicted".
Probably right here too!
Loangraphs: "with abstract grammatical particles such as 之 and 其" - that remains abstract to me
Oh, I should probably include glosses for both (roughly 'of' and 'their', I suppose?)
Traditional narrative: Can the knotting be given some dating?
Yes, good point!

I am so sorry for repaying your kind attention with a month of absentmindedness. Remsense ‥ 论 22:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't need pay/repay, - just attention ;) - Next round, you can just reply below my bullets, - easier for me. I have no idea when the next round will be, as described on your talk. Goehr will keep me busy for at least another day, and I have not responded to two kind reviewers of my FAC. The recent deaths articles come first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finally back, and all I have to say is that, in "Vocabulary ...", Sinosphere is not linked and explained when first mentioned (but later), and a sentence begins with "Excepting" and has "latter two", while the four of what were not yet mentioned, - too complex for my taste. I am quite overwhelmed by the number of characters in whatever of these systems and would have a very hard time to learn. I admire all who do. Thank you for the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense: It has been over a month since the last comment. Is this ready to be closed and nominated for WP:FAC? Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be content with this being closed, thank you + others for your diligence here. Remsense ‥ 论 23:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]