Talk:Cross Temple, Fangshan/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Remsense留 23:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Remsense (talk · contribs) 16:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

Thanks for deciding to review! I am opening a section here for the comments. I should have one hour to spare each day. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I've just started going through with copy-edits and getting familiar with the sources, feel free to rv any you disagree with or ask me. Remsense留 19:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First question! Do you know Tang Xiaofeng's gender? I caught myself not knowing after some initial looking, but I had to rewrite a sentence not to specify 'he' or 'she'. Remsense留 22:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the name in Chinese, looks like a “he”. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Tang's profile on Baidu Baike ([1]). Confirmed that it's a "he". Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tyvm! Remsense留 23:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to Xinhua 重點文物位 etc. has been translated as "major cultural heritage site", do you think that is acceptable to use in the article instead of "Major Historical and Cultural Site Protected at the National Level"? Still wikilinked, of course. Remsense留 23:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. We're talking about "全国重点文物保护单位". Official translations of Chinese terms are usually not clear.

The definitive source, the National People's Congress, says major sites to be protected for their historical and cultural value at the national level.
This China Daily article uses the term major historical and cultural sites protected at the national level.
The Global Times, a semi-official newspaper, uses major historical and cultural site protected at the national level.
The Translator Association of China uses the term important heritage site under state protection.

I think the term "major historical and cultural sites protected at the national level" is the term to use. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only ask because "cultural heritage site" is pretty much a well-known English phrase that neatly and naturally describes this concept, but if you think the word-for-word translation is superior, I'll be happy to leave it. Remsense留 20:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I’d prefer that you leave it, but I appreciate your rationale. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about minor shuffling of the "Current state" and "Relics" sections? I wanted to move the items still onsite to the former from the latter, and leave the latter for items that have been taken from the site. Remsense留 23:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea. The logic of putting "Current state" at its current place (ha) is that it continues the history of the site in a natural chronological manner. In this sense, I am also open to moving the "Current state" section into a subsection right after "20th–21st centuries". Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get bogged down in details—I think I've done my copyediting for the day, and I made sure to check that I wasn't altering the meaning from the sources, but please let me know if I miss anything. I might be done tomorrow. Remsense留 00:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will proof-read today. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense Proofreading done. Made some tweaking. All things look good except the mention of Eastern Jin in the lede. Originally built during the Eastern Jin dynasty (317–420) as a Buddhist temple – from what we know, it is not clear whether the temple was first built in Eastern Jin or Later Jin. The Eastern Jin claim goes back to, fundamentally, a primary source (the Liao stele). But there's only one scholar (Wang) who mentioned the Later Jin possibility. What should we do? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the mention of Buddhism, thanks for catching that! Remsense留 20:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I am afraid I didn't get my point through. The mention of Buddhism is not a question; the question is whether we should declare that the temple was founded during the Eastern Jin, even though the date of founding is not certain. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheLonelyPather, Ah! My bad. Re-fixed. Remsense留 23:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now lede looks excellent. I have no more to add to the article. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, finished the last pass through the article: this is a very well-written article for a deserving subject. I can continue to work on it afterwards, but for now this passes all GA criteria. Congratulations! Remsense留 23:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review and your painstaking copyediting! And thank you for your attention to Chinese topics on Wikipedia. Looking forward to working with you more in the new year. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.