![]() | Tian Feng (magazine) has been listed as one of the
Philosophy and religion good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 23, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Stedil ( talk · contribs) 02:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Greetings! I will review this article.
Stedil (
talk) 02:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
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. | I don't see anything in the guide to layout that seems to require every citation be formatted exactly the same way, so I'm assuming it's okay that not all works cited are in the 'works cited' section? |
![]() |
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). | Could not check the foreign-language sources but accept as good faith; other sources all look reliable. Multiple random checks of assertions in sourcing show careful attention to detail by author. |
![]() |
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. | I have no expertise in this subject but accept as good faith |
![]() |
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. | appears to be neutral |
![]() |
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. | Can't assess foreign-language descriptions, but the images appear to comply |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Caption for portrait would make a good DYK hook |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Wu was a proponent of the social gospel as well as a Chinese patriot.Citation needed. What exactly is a "Chinese Patriot?"
Tian Feng was founded in February 1945 as a weekly liberal magazine published by the YMCAThis is too close to what's written in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Chinese Culture. The version in the lead is slightly better, but could probably also be rewritten. Try reading how multiple sources describe its founding, then summarize all of them in a unique way. Perhaps a little more detail would help as well: how, exactly, was the material "liberal?" Was there a particular viewpoint the magazine was expressing originally?
published some of his most important theological articlesThis is a direct quote of the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Chinese Culture. Please rephrase. Again, perhaps more detail would help - what kinds of theological articles? What did he write about that was so important?
More on the way. Stedil ( talk) 22:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
leading Christian magazine in the country.This statement isn't neutral. Perhaps change "leading" to "most widely circulated."
By 1951, the tables had turned and Wu had to make a public confession in the magazine for not having supported the communists enoughThis sentence has some editorializing that isn't necessary. Just state the facts. I would remove "the tables had turned" and the italic emphasis of the word "not."
but were purged nonethelessWhat is meant by "purged?" Consider revising this entire sentence, as it is quite choppy with all of the commas.
To be continued... Stedil ( talk) 23:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Stedil has not edited on Wikipedia since January 8, over two months ago, and nominator Finnusertop has requested a new reviewer at WT:GAN. Making this request here, and putting a "second opinion" status on the nomination, in the hopes that it attracts a new reviewer who can complete this review. Thanks for anyone who takes this on. BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking at writing first, by sections:
Lead:
I wasn’t sure what ‘became increasingly difficult’ meant:
At the height of the Cultural Revolution, writing on theology became increasingly difficult, and the magazine was discontinued in 1964.
…and the pertinent section doesn’t clarify it for me:
With the mounting ultra-leftist tendencies that would ultimately lead to the Cultural Revolution, Christian activities became constrained. Although Tian Feng continued publication for the time being, publication of theological articles became impossible in 1959.
I think it’s saying that the government cracked down on religion to the point that the paper could no longer publish theological articles?
History:
This progression seems pretty repetitive:
Some of Wu's most important theological articles were published in the journal,[4][7] such as "The Present Day Tragedy of Christianity".[8] "The Present Day Tragedy of Christianity"[edit | edit source] In Easter of 1948, Wu published an article called "The Present Day Tragedy of Christianity".
Organ:
Wasn’t sure what this meant:
calling for the relationship of foreign missionaries and foreign governments to be exposed.
Relationship between the missionaries and their governments? As in the government believe they were spies or propagandists?
The names mentioned in this section – should we explain who they were?
Watchman Nee had long been persecuted (by the government/party?)
The final paragraph of this section seems out of chronological order – would moving it into the above paragraph clarify the above concerns?
I made a few copyedits, please check to make sure I haven't introduced error! -- valereee ( talk) 18:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Finnusertop I'm finished except for that listed above! Ping me when you get through to make sure I don't miss it going by on my watchlist! -- valereee ( talk) 14:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I've been asked to take a look at this review. I think good work has been done so far, but I have some more comments. However, these are based more on what I believe meets the relevant parts of the good article criteria. I'm generally not a fan of refusing to do things just because they're not in the GA criteria, unless they would take an unnecessary amount of time. For example, expanding an area of an article lacking in source material to hand could be excused, formatting a sentence that isn't in the GA criteria but makes sense to do anyway should just be done unless there are valid objections to doing so. Anyway, some comments:
Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I see the article is categorized as a GA without a topic parameter -- what did I do wrong? -- valereee ( talk) 10:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | Tian Feng (magazine) has been listed as one of the
Philosophy and religion good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 23, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Stedil ( talk · contribs) 02:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Greetings! I will review this article.
Stedil (
talk) 02:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
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. | I don't see anything in the guide to layout that seems to require every citation be formatted exactly the same way, so I'm assuming it's okay that not all works cited are in the 'works cited' section? |
![]() |
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). | Could not check the foreign-language sources but accept as good faith; other sources all look reliable. Multiple random checks of assertions in sourcing show careful attention to detail by author. |
![]() |
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. | I have no expertise in this subject but accept as good faith |
![]() |
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. | appears to be neutral |
![]() |
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. | Can't assess foreign-language descriptions, but the images appear to comply |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Caption for portrait would make a good DYK hook |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Wu was a proponent of the social gospel as well as a Chinese patriot.Citation needed. What exactly is a "Chinese Patriot?"
Tian Feng was founded in February 1945 as a weekly liberal magazine published by the YMCAThis is too close to what's written in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Chinese Culture. The version in the lead is slightly better, but could probably also be rewritten. Try reading how multiple sources describe its founding, then summarize all of them in a unique way. Perhaps a little more detail would help as well: how, exactly, was the material "liberal?" Was there a particular viewpoint the magazine was expressing originally?
published some of his most important theological articlesThis is a direct quote of the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Chinese Culture. Please rephrase. Again, perhaps more detail would help - what kinds of theological articles? What did he write about that was so important?
More on the way. Stedil ( talk) 22:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
leading Christian magazine in the country.This statement isn't neutral. Perhaps change "leading" to "most widely circulated."
By 1951, the tables had turned and Wu had to make a public confession in the magazine for not having supported the communists enoughThis sentence has some editorializing that isn't necessary. Just state the facts. I would remove "the tables had turned" and the italic emphasis of the word "not."
but were purged nonethelessWhat is meant by "purged?" Consider revising this entire sentence, as it is quite choppy with all of the commas.
To be continued... Stedil ( talk) 23:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Stedil has not edited on Wikipedia since January 8, over two months ago, and nominator Finnusertop has requested a new reviewer at WT:GAN. Making this request here, and putting a "second opinion" status on the nomination, in the hopes that it attracts a new reviewer who can complete this review. Thanks for anyone who takes this on. BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking at writing first, by sections:
Lead:
I wasn’t sure what ‘became increasingly difficult’ meant:
At the height of the Cultural Revolution, writing on theology became increasingly difficult, and the magazine was discontinued in 1964.
…and the pertinent section doesn’t clarify it for me:
With the mounting ultra-leftist tendencies that would ultimately lead to the Cultural Revolution, Christian activities became constrained. Although Tian Feng continued publication for the time being, publication of theological articles became impossible in 1959.
I think it’s saying that the government cracked down on religion to the point that the paper could no longer publish theological articles?
History:
This progression seems pretty repetitive:
Some of Wu's most important theological articles were published in the journal,[4][7] such as "The Present Day Tragedy of Christianity".[8] "The Present Day Tragedy of Christianity"[edit | edit source] In Easter of 1948, Wu published an article called "The Present Day Tragedy of Christianity".
Organ:
Wasn’t sure what this meant:
calling for the relationship of foreign missionaries and foreign governments to be exposed.
Relationship between the missionaries and their governments? As in the government believe they were spies or propagandists?
The names mentioned in this section – should we explain who they were?
Watchman Nee had long been persecuted (by the government/party?)
The final paragraph of this section seems out of chronological order – would moving it into the above paragraph clarify the above concerns?
I made a few copyedits, please check to make sure I haven't introduced error! -- valereee ( talk) 18:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Finnusertop I'm finished except for that listed above! Ping me when you get through to make sure I don't miss it going by on my watchlist! -- valereee ( talk) 14:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I've been asked to take a look at this review. I think good work has been done so far, but I have some more comments. However, these are based more on what I believe meets the relevant parts of the good article criteria. I'm generally not a fan of refusing to do things just because they're not in the GA criteria, unless they would take an unnecessary amount of time. For example, expanding an area of an article lacking in source material to hand could be excused, formatting a sentence that isn't in the GA criteria but makes sense to do anyway should just be done unless there are valid objections to doing so. Anyway, some comments:
Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I see the article is categorized as a GA without a topic parameter -- what did I do wrong? -- valereee ( talk) 10:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)