Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zhou Tong (archer)

< 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 promoted 20:57, 17 July 2007.

Zhou Tong (archer) edit

Self-Nomination - I have built this page from the ground up for the last two years. Nothing more can be done in regard to the breadth of the material. It has two adjoining articles as well. It is listed as GA and A-class among various wiki projects. (Ghostexorcist 12:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comments from Universe=atom
    • The disambiguation message sounds a little bit strange (He is not to be...). Please fix it.
    • Why is the word "second" italicized in the the lead?
    • Even though it is not an FA requirement, perhaps some more "categories" can be added to the article. If none are available, ignore this point.
    • Why are there Chinese external links? This is the English Wikipedia and not the Chinese one.
I realize that. However, wikipedia is about sharing information. External links are provided so people can look at other information not provided on the page. Several other FA pages include foreign links.(Ghostexorcist 02:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • The beginning of the "References" section is a bit odd and, according to me, is not supposed to be put that way.
    • Perhaps the "References" section can be merged in with the "Notes" section. The current state is that the complete format of the references is provided in the "References" section and short citations referring to their long counterparts (the counterparts here are the ones in the "References" section) are put in the "Notes" section. What I am suggesting is that the first time a particular source appears in the article, it can be written out fully in the "Notes" section; when they are repeated (with a different page number, for example), they can be just like the current ones in the "Notes" section.
    • Perhaps a "See Also" section can also be introduced.
Done and done. (Ghostexorcist 07:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • In subsection number 1.2, why does the link Hellmut Wilhelm point to the German Wikipedia instead of the English (and again in subsection 1.3, for that matter)?
That was probably because the Hellmut Wilhelm article did not previously exist on the English Wikipedia. I solved that problem by translating it over myself.--Danaman5 23:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grammar mistake: last sentence of the same subsection (there should be a comma after "So").
    • The previous mistake is repeated several times in the entire article.
I have fixed all of the "So" mistakes throughout the article. However, I think the writing still needs work in other areas.--Danaman5 05:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • More references are needed in subsection 1.2 (in the first half of the first paragraph)
    • In the "infobox" in the beginning of the article, why is this person's name mentioned in so many languages?
Mainly because his student, Yue Fei, is known in other asian countries. So, I wanted to provided those versions of his name. However, I have erased them since it deals primarily with China.(Ghostexorcist 03:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • The picture in the "infobox" is barely visible in my computer; ignore this if it is visible in other computers of different resolutions.
It's a low resolution photo. I've never really had any problems with other editors. It might just be your computer.(Ghostexorcist 02:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Sub-sub-section 2.4.1 is perhaps too long and can be perhaps trimmed down a bit.
    • The same goes for subsection 1.3
It is impossible to shrink both of these sections as they hold information that is very important. The events after Zhou's death led to Yue joining the army, which is what he is famous for. Zhou's association with the water margin bandits is fictional. However, some people believe he was there actual tutor. The first couple of paragraphs discusses the connection; the second, what skills he supposedly taught them; and three, why the connection is fictional.(Ghostexorcist 02:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • The first sentence of the "History" section goes like this: "On his deathbed, Yue's third son Yue Lin (Chinese: 岳霖, b. 1130)[14] asked his own son, the poet and historian Yue Ke (Chinese: 岳柯, 1183 - post 1240)[15] to complete Yue Fei's memoirs." Who is Yue? Why is there no mention of him before in the section. I know that he is mentioned in the lead, but facts mentioned in the introduction are just supposed to be an overview of the entire article and are thus supposed to be mentioned again in the article.
The Yue in question is mentioned twice in the lead paragraph. He is Yue Fei. But I have written his full name in that first part to avoid confusion.(Ghostexorcist 01:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

After these minor points are taken care of, I am sure that this article will have some potential as an FA. It is well written (although I must admit that that is not true of the entire article but most of it), is well referenced, and is within size limits (excluding the references and the images, of course). Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 18:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An unforeseen event has happened in my personal life that will keep me away from the computer until Monday. I will answer all of your questions by then. Sorry for the inconvenience.(Ghostexorcist 23:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am back, but I don't know for how long. I also wanted to note I am striking through each question (example) once I answer or fix a certain problem, not to be mean. (Ghostexorcist 02:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comments Why is the lead so heavily footnoted? Unless we're talking about facts that are not found throughout the rest of the article, it's just needless repetition of footnotes. The use of Chinese characters seems excessive at times. In some instances, it's quite reasonable, but not in all instances. Neither should Chinese names of people or places in pinyin be italicized; this should be reserved for titles of literary works and terms like guan (i.e. 冠). And, please remove all those repetitive instances of Chinese-links. I think people get the point after simply reading the lead... Peter Isotalo 11:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles) page says "This edition of Wikipedia is in English, so do not use characters or romanized forms excessively, such as for common words, making this a kind of English–Chinese bilingual edition. However, if the term does not have an established translation (that is, has multiple translations or none), feel free to provide the Chinese characters, which will be useful to the content of the article." In addition, they provide Chinese templates for use in Chinese related pages. There is no limitation set on the usage of these templates.(Ghostexorcist 03:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment Word to wise: ibid is a bad idea with something like Wikipedia. What might work with something nice and static won't work with something that isn't.--Rmky87 12:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. I fixed it myself.--Rmky87 15:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The main problem that I see with this article is that it seems to be trying to be a research article all on its own. That is not the function of Wikipedia, and several areas need a rewrite because of this fact. Two examples are:
    • (end of the first paragraph under the "tutelage" section):"So, Yue’s emulation of martial heroes, love of military stratagem books, learning of military weapons, and avoidance of the scholarly path suggests Zhou was hired to teach the future general archery in a military capacity. And this is exactly what Western Washington University history professor Edward Kaplan believes. He describes him as Yue's "most important military tutor."[26]"
Deciding what the facts suggest is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. It is, however, appropriate for professor Edward Kaplan. I would rewrite it as: "Western Washington University history professor Edward Kaplan believes that Yue’s emulation of martial heroes, love of military stratagem books, learning of military weapons, and avoidance of the scholarly path suggests Zhou was hired to teach the future general archery in a military capacity, and describes him as Yue's "most important military tutor."[26]"
    • (end of the second paragraph under the "tutelage" section):"In sum, Yue's following of the military path, the Yue family's poverty, Yao Dewang's charity, and Yue's rapid mastery of the spear suggests Zhou was later hired by Yao to continue Yue's military education."
We do not have the authority to theorize in this manner. Find a secondary source that says this (perhaps the professor again), or remove it. Also check for other examples of this kind of writing.
    • Also, Chinese names are not usually italicized on Wikipedia, as far as I know, so you don't need to do that here. Also, I agree with others that frequently giving the Chinese characters can be a bit distracting. If it is a person who has an article on Wikipedia, you don't need to give the characters, because they can just go to the article to get them. For other things, just use your best judgment about whether the importance of the object merits including the characters.--Danaman5 04:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered all the questions or corrected all problems voiced above. However, I'm sure there are still tiny things that need to be done. (Ghostexorcist 07:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support: This article is well-written with adequate references. Therefore, I support this article, but only after the following point is taken care of: Many of the references are in languages other than English; they should be labeled accordingly. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 13:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It seems like the above concerns have been addressed, and so much work has gone into it.--Danaman5 03:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I second that, Danaman. Ghostexorcist has definitely poured a lot of work and care into this article.--PericlesofAthens 17:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Some web sources are missing publishers and access dates. The "Zhou in popular culture" section is too stubby. Some citations aren't placed immediately after punctuation. There is some incorrect dash usage. Common terms like "cream-colored" and "young adult" don't need wikilinking. A further copy-edit is needed to remove redundancies from the prose, such as the word "alternate" in "that describe alternate events different from those presented below", and "of" in "Yue Fei ventures inside of the classroom". The phrase "the majority of" is too wordy; it should be replaced by "most". Epbr123 20:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Zhou_Tong_(archer)&oldid=145781333"