Talk:Hòa Hảo/GA1

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.

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

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 21:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

I'll take this on for review as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Good_articles/GAN_Backlog_Drives/January_2022. I'm interested to find out more about Hòa Hảo, which I know very little about. Comments coming in the next few days, which should fit well because the nominator Solavirum said on their talkpage "5–28 January, winter exam session in my university. Very unlikely to respond during this period". I note also that there is an open peer review request at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hòa Hảo/archive1 - open since January 2 and with no replies so there shouldn't be much of a clash. Mujinga (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mujinga, thank you for taking the time to review this. I wrote it from scratch; I did paraphrase a lot, though I requested a CE just to be sure. The CE process is still ongoing, however, I don't believe there are many grammatical and prosaic errors left at this point. I'm able to respond more freely now than I was earlier this month, but of course, take you time. Also, I'm guessing that this is by mistake? --► Sincerely: Sola virum 21:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Solavirum Oh gosh sorry about the weird botfail yes that's an error, I think it's something to do with the diacritics, I haven't even started my review yet. Looking forward! Mujinga (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the requested CE is now completed. --► Sincerely: Sola virum 05:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that's good timing on the copyedit; i was talking about the peer review request, which should prob be closed per Wikipedia:Peer_review/guidelines#Step_4:_Closing_a_review:

When can a review be closed?

If you are the nominator, you can close the review at any time, although this is discouraged if a discussion is still active.

If the article has become a candidate for good article, featured article or featured list status

comments should be coming in the next hours Mujinga (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

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

Copyvio check

earwig gives 76% clash with https://www.ecoi.net/en/document/2057132.html, can you explain this?
hmm also a few sentences a bit too close to https://www.rfa.org/english/news/vietnam/hoa-hao-buddhists-in-vietnam-beaten-10072019165527.html
@Solavirum: can you look into this before we move further into the review? because copyvio is a quickfail. in case you don't know earwig, i am using this to check - https://copyvios.toolforge.org/
- Mujinga, I do remember checking it out before nominating the article. Research Directorate is basically the only thorough source about the contemporary situation of the religion. The source and what I wrote have a lot of quotes that shouldn't use WP:WIKIVOICE, so I just kept them quotes (like "standing up against dictatorship"). I tackled the issues and paraphrased the problematic parts. --► Sincerely: Sola virum 15:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - just checked earwig and it's now giving 0% copyvio across the board, which seems bizarre so I'll wait and check again. as previous talkpage discussions have already made clear, copyvio is a big problem, so i do want to get this sorted before continuing the review Mujinga (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mujinga, I wholeheartedly understand your stance. I further paraphrased the text, but it still gives 39.8% copyright violation ("Violation Unlikely", per the tool), but the tool's assertion is problematic. It picks up the titles of the sources (i.e. title of the RFA news article, which I can't alter) and out place words (such as the phrase "pure sect"), as well as government agency names which I cannot change (such as "Commission on International Religious Freedom"). --► Sincerely: Sola virum 06:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yup Solavirum today I'm getting 39.8% as well and like you say, titles are fine. I'm glad the rest of the copyvio is gone and we can continue the review. I'm not sure how much time I'll have today but comments will come in the next days. Could you cancel the peer review request as I asked above? You can say the GAR is ongoing, so anyone else who wants to make a comment can do so here as well. Mujinga (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Mujinga, sure, go ahead and take your time, I don't mind. Also, the peer review request is now canceled. --► Sincerely: Sola virum 12:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Y "The religious movement was named after the founder Huỳnh Phú Sổ's native village of Hoa Hao[1] (Hòa Hảo;[2] Vietnamese: [ɗâːwˀ hwàː hâːw] (audio speaker iconlisten); Chữ Hán: 道和好; literally "peace and plenty"),[15] in what is now An Giang Province's Thốt Nốt District.[16] " please start with "Hòa Hảo is a religious movement" or similar and please say the province is in Vietnam
"known as Đạo Bửu Sơn Kỳ Hương." could this be translated?
"He was afflicted by an unknown illness since he was 15, a failed candidate for the Cao Đài." link using and?
"This prompted him to leave his native village of Hòa Hảo" what prompted him?
" Sổ founded the religion" prob best to say Sổ founded Hòa Hảo
On a reference spotcheck, I've found more copyvio with 'The Hoa Hao: A Half-Century of Conflict' by

John B. Haseman:

- You say: Sổ became a wildly popular leader as his faithful group grew in size. His influence quickly expanded beyond religious matters, and he became a powerful figure in lay affairs as well.
- Haseman says: As the religion expanded, Huynh Phu So also became an immensely successful popular leader. His influence soon transcended the purely religious; he became a powerful authority in lay affairs as well.
- You: The Hòa Hảo grew from a purely religious movement to encompass an impressive lay power structure centered on Cần Tho Province.
- Haseman: Beginning as a purely religious movement, the Hoa Hao sect came to encompass an impressive lay power structure centered on the French Can Tho Province.
- You: Sổ's religious prescriptions quickly merged with nationalist, anti-colonial sentiment, and he quickly rose to prominence as a key nationalist figure.
- Haseman: His religious prescriptions rapidly blended with nationalist, anticolonial sentiment, and before long So had emerged as an important nationalist leader
- You: The group grew into the Mekong Delta's most powerful nationalist force, with strong sentiment against the colonial French rulers and the landlords who dominated the agriculture of Cochinchina. The Hòa Hảo played a crucial role in the anti-colonial, nationalist fervor that grew in the years leading up to World War II.
- Haseman: It developed into the foremost nationalist force in the Delta, where feeling against the French colonial rulers and the landlords dominating Cochinchina agriculture ran high [...] The Hoa Hao assumed critical importance in the anticolonial, nationalist fervor that began to mount prior to World War II.
- You: İt ultimately became a homegrown political movement in the region.
- Haseman: To the Hoa Hao, their religion became a home-grown political movement

Your writing is simply too close to the sources. You are changing words but not rewriting in your own words. I'm sad that you have repeatedly been warned about this but it's not getting through. I'd love this article to be a good article, but it must be written with your own words. To be honest you would probably be better off starting again. So I'm going to quickfail this on copyvio concerns. Mujinga (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2022 (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.