Talk:Blockchain Chicken Farm

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Blockchain Chicken Farm is about chicken farms run by people who have never heard of blockchain? Source: “It was actually a really awkward visit… once I started asking people, ‘well, what do you think of blockchain,’ they’re like, ‘why? What are you talking about?’ They thought that I was making fun of them,” recalled Wang.
  • ALT1: ... that "if there were an award for the best book title, Blockchain Chicken Farm would surely be in [the] running for 2020"? Source: opening paragraph direct quote
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Blotter art

Moved to mainspace by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 04:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Blockchain Chicken Farm; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• This article is new enough (created on 18 July), long enough, and within policy. In particular, this article included comprehensive reviews of different opinions, in accordance with NPOV. Its tone and content also is definitely not WP:PROMOTION. The sources are reliable. The hook is interesting and abides by the rules. QPQ checked. Overall, approval:

*sighs and takes a deep breath* Bawk bawk! This article is so egg-citing! Cluck cluck! It's brand-new, laid on 18 July, long enough to peck at, and perfectly in line with the coop's rules. Bawk! It's got a full spread of reviews, covering all the pecking orders, keeping it nice and NPOV. No crowing for attention here, it's not WP:PROMOTION, I promise! Cluck! The sources are solid like grain, and the hook is as interesting as finding a juicy worm! Bawk! QPQ checked and all feathers are in order. Cluck! Overall, I'm giving it my "approval!" Bawk bawk!^[Humor] --TheLonelyPather (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• By the way, Earwig gives a score of 18%, but that's because of the long book title. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blockchain Chicken Farm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 10:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Will review this soon! —Kusma (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Content review

• Lead: will comment later whether it is a fair summary
• Is there a citation for the Dewey Decimal in the infobox?
  • These seem to fall into 'not-assumed-cited' going by prior GAN/FAC experience -- possibly because many books mention them and they're all catgorized in databases anyway?
    • They do? I remember trying to find out Dewey Decimals for some books (dreaming of participating in one of Bilorv's Challenges) and failing, so unless this is mentioned in the book itself, I'd like to see a citation. —Kusma (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Background: mid-late twentieth century would prefer "mid to late"
• A distinctive feature of Chinese internal migration is hukou, a household registration system As I understand it, it should rather be called "hukou system" (everybody has a hukou). Perhaps say "A distinctive feature of Chinese internal migration is the hukou system of household registration"? The article hukou says the system is called 户籍 huji.
• Food safety is a widespread concern in China link is a bit very long if you ask me
• Do we know more about Xiaowei Wang? (Approximate age, place of origin, name in Chinese characters in Chinese-born)?
  • Not that I've found. Vaticidalprophet 23:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Not super much extra on their webpage either, other than editing Logic from 2016 and obtaining the PhD in 2023. I do get the impression they grew up in the US, so the name in characters is less important. —Kusma (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Synopsis: What exactly is Bubuji/GoGoChicken? Is it a company, a cooperative, or something else? Is the farm run by Jiang or by Bubuji?
  • Have added the context on who runs Bubuji. It's not super-clear to me if Jiang is a true smallholder or if his farm is a subsidiary, but I'm fairly sure it's the former. On the next point, Wang explicitly distinguishes between the two names and considers Bubuji the 'more official' one (The official name is Bubuji (步步鸡), or GoGoChicken, as some English PR materials call it), though other Anglophone sources (e.g. Sixth Tone) only use GoGoChicken. Vaticidalprophet 09:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• It looks to me as if GoGoChicken is just a fairly literal English translation of 步步鸡 bubuji.
• Convert RMB300 to USD? It is a pretty good sales price for a chicken; is that wholesale or end customer?
  • Have added the currency-conversion template (for some reason I remember having trouble finding it the first time around). I think from the source it's end-customer -- Wang specifically names an ecommerce platform and the buyers are described as basically yuppies, which I've clarified. Vaticidalprophet 09:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Blockchain Chicken Farm's vignette style continues Identifying the book's style as "vignette style" is straying into OR territory and could use a citation. (Generally, for non-fiction and also for historical fiction articles, I am not convinced that "no citations in the synopsis" is the way to go).
• Sun Wei is less marginalized why is he "Sun Wei" and not just "Sun" like "Ren" and "Jiang"?
  • That's what the book calls him. I'm not sure why he got a full name and they didn't. Vaticidalprophet 23:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
    • OK. —Kusma (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• a recipe for mooncakes, styled as a meal prepared from moon-grown ingredients. sounds interesting :) what's in it? is it worth trying the recipe before moon festival?
• Research: During Wang's research, they tried to discuss the blockchain technology underpinning GoGoChicken with the people using it, only to discover none of them were familiar with the concept I understand that Wang uses they/them pronouns, but for the reader who is unaware of their pronouns, this is not good, as the first "they" could just as well refer to the "individuals with no knowledge" of the previous sentence. Perhaps better to say "Wang tried to discuss the blockchain technology"
• which was reported by media disproportionately compared to the role it played in its genesis can you simplify this to make it easier to read?
• Publication and reception: I learned recently that some people consider Wikidata links in {{ill}} to be prohibited by the "no links to Wikidata in mainspace" rule from some anti-Wikidata RfC.
  • I'm aware of the RfC and don't think that interpretation agrees with its close, which explicitly separated ILLs from links in general and found no clear consensus either way (which itself is a bit of a supervote reading of the discussion). Vaticidalprophet 23:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Are you sure all the redlinked books and authors are notable?
  • Yes. There's maybe 1-2 authors that are borderline -- the rest are all pretty clear, and all the books are obvious NBOOK passes. There's a lot missing in this part of the encyclopedia. Vaticidalprophet 23:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Blockchain Chicken Farm featured on several recommendations lists. The New York Times featured ... Can you try to cut down on the "featured"s? ("BCF was included in several recommendation lists...")

Comments on GA criteria

Very nice article overall. A few issues, nothing major. Happy with lead section and MoS.

• Sources are reliable; the most questionable is perhaps Sixth Tone, but according to the RfC Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287#RfC:_Sixth_Tone we should be OK here. Nicely formatted, not too closely paraphrased.
• Probably no original research, but I had a question about identifying as "vignettes".
• Happy with broadness/focus/neutrality. Just one question: is there any actual blockchain in the book?
• Images are fine.

I think I'm done with my first pass. Vaticidalprophet, I await your responses. —Kusma (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Just replied to a couple of these -- I'll look over the article for prose edits soon :) Vaticidalprophet 23:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I've reworded 'vignette' and the mid-late century part, and added a little more context on the recipes. I think I also have the last wording query sorted, re. the ET Agricultural Brain thing. I don't think there's a good way to handle the piped link -- "food safety in China is a widespread concern" feels a bit too "obviously trying to word around the article title", IMO (that article does it in its opening, but it feels "trying to shoehorn the bold title" to me). Vaticidalprophet 09:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks good now! The last sentence of "Research" might work better as two sentences to make it less convoluted, but that's not a reason to hold up promotion. —Kusma (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Source checks

Footnote numbering is that of special:permanentlink/1169635232.

• 2: ok
• 8a: ok together with 9
• 10b: ok
• 22: could not access. Could you quote the content confirming it as one of extremely few books addressing artificial intelligence from the perspective of the Global South?
• 26: ok
  • American Literature (#22) is published by Duke University Press, so they're accessible through TWL. The quote is Yet most importantly, Blockchain Chicken Farm offers one of the only examples of scholarship on ecology and AI from a perspective in the global South that I could find, to date. Wang examines not only detrimental AI effects on rural China, but also AI uses by people living in rural China, telling a more complex story of technology and agency than victimhood, against the particular backdrop of Chinese history and cultures. By contrast, texts like AI in the Wild and Kate Crawford’s Atlas of AI tend to address the global South as the passive subject of ecological damage by technologies designed in the global North. While mapping geographies of harm is important work, it is only half of a rigorous environmental justice agenda, which should examine not only victimization but also the desires, hopes, and aspirations of particular communities as users, adapters, and designers of AI and its associated functions: machine learning technologies, data management, and storage. Blockchain Chicken Farm models how to approach questions of ecology and AI by asking the crucial question of "for whom," countering tendencies to see AI as a story only about Silicon Valley, US corporations, cities, and the affluent and instead approaching AI from the perspectives of Chinese farmers and others living in rural contexts. Vaticidalprophet 09:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.