Talk:St. Francis Cathedral, Xi'an/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: toobigtokale (talk · contribs) 00:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Beginning review. toobigtokale (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done first review.toobigtokale (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Toobigtokale::

Thank you for your timely review and fixing all the grammatical errors. My strength is not in English grammars. I agree with most of your suggestions.

Regarding to your I feel like keeping Li Du'an in the "Notable people" section raises more visibility to invite other editors to write an article about him. But that is just my personal judgement. I will think about it more.

I agree that this article could have better sectioning, but I am not sure how. On one hand, I must keep the chronological line. On the other hand, some subsections are indeed too short.

"you could compress especially the head of government/state visits into a single section"– the problem is that there is only one head of state visit (President of Germany).

I will take time to fix this article in the upcoming few days. Meanwhile, I would really appreciate some more feedback regarding sectioning. How would you section this article? TheLonelyPather (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I think you can move Li Du'an to a more prominent position elsewhere in the article. While it would be nice for him to get his own article, if we're aiming for a good article on this one Li's article takes second priority imo.

For sectioning, it's a bit complicated agreed. You could make one subheader called "Recent history" and group a bunch of the final events since 2008 into one; that'd solve much of the issue.

My mistake on head of government/state thing; don't know why I thought there was more than one!

Also, forgot to mention; are you following WP:ZHNAME for first name last name ordering? toobigtokale (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. For Li Du'an, it is all right: if I delete him, I will recycle the material and write a little article about him.

To my knowledge, I am following WP:ZHNAME for first name last name ordering. Clergy names, which appear a lot in this article, belong to a particular case: their Christian name goes before their Chinese name. E.g.

I am not sure if there is a written instruction on this, but this seemed to be the convention. Thanks again for the suggestions. TheLonelyPather (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that all sounds good. toobigtokale (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Toobigtokale:,

In the "People's Republic of China" section, you marked "Xi'an's Candy Factory" as clarification needed. In the original text, the factory is described as "西安糖果厂": the candy factory is called "the Xi'an Candy Factory." (Probably because socialist countries like to name factories by where they are located?)

I acknowledge that my wording "Xi'an's Candy Factory" could be misleading. I will change it to "The cathedral was appropriated by the Xi'an Candy Factory." Please let me know if this is better. TheLonelyPather (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes better. toobigtokale (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article according to your great suggestions. Please let me know what you think. On a side note, I did not put date ranges (like "Republic of China: 1912-1949") in the section headers. When I wrote the article, I thought about doing so, but I feel like the numbers are too distracting and hinders readability. TheLonelyPather (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks better. I made some small changes too. Some remaining comments:

1. The Republic of China section doesn't need its single subsection

2. Second caption in architecture could use more detail; what specifically is being shown? Is it related to the text at all, and if so, point out how.

3. "Thug" is an emotionally charged word imo (it's infamously used in biased media sources), and although it's probably an accurate usage here, there are less emotionally charged alternatives that are as descriptive. I recommend either replace with an alternative or remove and just say "attack"

4. Added some clarification requests toobigtokale (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Toobigtokale:

Hope you are well. I have modified the article according to your suggestions. Besides what you outlined, I modified the "References" section, because I added an explanatory footnote. Please let me know what else I should improve. Many thanks! TheLonelyPather (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, good changes. I'm giving the article another once-over for grammar. Respectfully, it's still a consistent issue. In future if you'd like to submit a good article request, I recommend either providing a heads up of potential grammar issues or finding a person who's willing to copyedit before submission. I'm ok with doing it but it takes around two hours total to revise. toobigtokale (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think I'm done. All that's left is a few clarification requests; once you complete those I'll give it a final look over and I think it can pass the good article criteria. toobigtokale (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will fix the clarification requests later. I just want to point out that the Pinyin of 西安糖果厂 is "Xī'ān tángguóchǎng." I am abiding by the rules on the page Pinyin:

There needs to be an apostrophe for Xī'ān:

The apostrophe (') is used before a syllable starting with a vowel (a, o, or e) in a syllable other than the first of a word, the syllable being most commonly realized as [ɰ] unless it immediately follows a hyphen or other dash. That is done to remove ambiguity that could arise, as in Xi'an, which consists of the two syllables xi (西) an (安), compared to such words as xian (先). (The ambiguity does not occur when tone marks are used since both tone marks in "Xīān" unambiguously show that the word has two syllables. However, even with tone marks, the city is usually spelled with an apostrophe as "Xī'ān".)

"Candy factory" is a word of combined meanings, so its Pinyin letters should be written together:

Combined meaning (2 or 3 characters): Same goes for words combined of two words to one meaning: hǎifēng (海风; 海風, sea breeze); wèndá (问答; 問答, question and answer); quánguó (全国; 全國, nationwide); chángyòngcí (常用词; 常用詞, common words)

Thanks for bringing my attention to this. TheLonelyPather (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Toobigtokale:

I have fixed the clarification requests. Thank you for proofreading and fixing the grammar. Let me know if this is all good. TheLonelyPather (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Congrats on your good article 🥳 toobigtokale (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justification for good article:

The scope is appropriate (there's probably more info about the church out there, but for a church of its stature the level of current info is comprehensive enough to not desire more imo)
Style adheres to all guidelines, as far as I'm aware. Copyright for photos is all fine, and the choice of photos seems fine too.

toobigtokale (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for guiding me through! This article did improve a lot. TheLonelyPather (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]