Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Luan Da/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 15:53, 29 August 2008 [1].

Luan Da

edit
Nominator(s): Nousernamesleft (talk)
previous FAC (01:41, 16 August 2008)

I've decided to take a risk (since I'm unsure if whether it's frowned upon) and renominate immediately. As far as I can tell, the previous nomination failed largely due to lack of review, not objections - there were a few prose reviews, one reference check, a comment (or was it two?) about comprehensiveness, and no image check. All that can be said for this article was said in the last nomination; the article has hardly changed. Nousernamesleft (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is frowned upon,[2] and no, I don't archive articles for lack of review. But since FAC clerical work is so time-consuming, I'll leave it to other editors to decide if this should run again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies then, in regards to the immediate renomination. As for not archiving articles for lack of review, why was the previous nomination archived, then? There weren't and aren't any reviews in which the reviewer was unsatisfied. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The previous FAC showed concern about comprehensiveness and sourcing, in a case where the lack of support could indicate reviewers want to see further development of the article content and sourcing. On the other hand, this is what "lack of review' looks like, and I don't archive a FAC like that without prompting reviewers at WT:FAC. I do not archive FACs for lack of review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If reviewers wanted to see that, I would think they would come right out and say so (as Ottava Rima does below), but I suppose that one could make the conclusion that you did. I'll try to address this in my response to Ottava. Nousernamesleft (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - small article (under 10K) suggests it wont be comprehensive enough to be ranked above GA/A (GA states that it is for articles that are too small or could never be ranked as FA). Also, there is only one image. There are six sources but less than 10k worth of text, suggesting either minimal coverage or not enough of the sources are used to build an FA. No Legacy section or section talking about his religious beliefs. No information on his early life, lack of dates, and little information detailing the important moments of his life (such as when he died, how he died, what records exist, etc). Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am certain that all of the information you mentioned is irrevocably lost in the tides of history. GA used to be for such figures, but no longer; the current FA guidelines only specify that it be comprehensive, thus, if very little is known of someone's life, then only that much needs to be written. Indeed, I actually considered making the article shorter; much of the information in the background section is only very, very loosely related to Luan Da himself. Nousernamesleft (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, and about the sources: Most of them only mention Luan Da tangentially, which is why the ratio of content to sources is so low. Nousernamesleft (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried looking through the Chinese Wikipedia? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find an article for him myself. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nor I. Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two points from my examination of the article:

  1. The lead seems a touch broken in the way that it discusses the rise and fall of popularity in mediums in ancient imperial China. It doesn't quite stress how these affected Luan Da's fortunes.
  2. First paragraph of "Rise to power." I assume it's Laun Da who was once a slave, but you probably need to make it a bit more clear.

And can you provide any information on why the Emperor was taking actions against shamans even before he turned on his own? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To second this, could you also provide any information on the teacher that the two shamans shared? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can rectify all of these concerns; I'll go check my sources. Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to reword the lead a bit, but the second concern I can't see at all; it seems very clear that "he" refers to Luan Da. I'm not sure what you mean by the third; Shaoweng had been exposed as at least partially a fraud, as described in the article, and so he was executed. What else is there to say? Ottava's concern I still need to take care of. Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I can see the second concern, never mind. I'll reword. Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava, I'm not sure what you have in mind for more about the teacher - Luan Da describes the teacher in his little rhetoric, but that's already in the article. I can't find much else, to be honest. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources still look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on image - Note that the image has a gigantic tag on it! It is missing all basic information - description, source, author, date. Please rectify this. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything, so I simply replaced the image. The new one has the information, though oddly, it's all squashed into the "description" field rather than spread out. Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that "The frescoe is located in Cave 323 in Mogao" would count as a source, but perhaps not. Yes, the author is unknown. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to know the source of the file - is it from the web? did someone take this photo? is it a scan from a book? See this dispatch for help with free images. Awadewit (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And done. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All image concerns have been met. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eno or Enos? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eno. Whoops. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm willing to offer a support now. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 13:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A nicely written article that was interesting and a pleasure to read. I do have a few questions, but bearing in mind that you've exhausted the available sources, they might not be possible to address. Luan Da was married to a daughter of the emperor, could this be expanded on? What was the public's reaction to this? Did he potentially have a claim to the throne? Did his position of power make him enemies? How much influence did Luan Da have over the emperor? Could we have a bit of explanation about the "immortals"? Nev1 (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to clarify the "immortals", but I'm not optimistic about any of the other requests. I'll try, though. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've received some very helpful sources in regards to this on my talk page; I think I can satisfy all these requests, as well as more. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After some delay, I'm starting. It seems that I was incorrect in telling Tuf-Kat that no secondary Chinese scholarly sources existed - my search was just not careful enough. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—too short to be considered "among our best work"; questionable comprehensiveness. Tony (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I'm working on it right now, though I may withdraw the nomination if it appears that the amount of material to be added is too large. Nousernamesleft (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I have a finished copy of the article using the new sources on my computer, I've decided that deciding which sections to use or not use will eat up far too much time to be reasonable during a FAC; and so am withdrawing this nomination. Thanks to all who commented. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2008 (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/Luan_Da/archive2&oldid=1078802667"