Talk:Chinese Rites controversy/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) 16:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Some issues with File:Ricci1.jpg. Lacking source information and author make it hard to check if the license is correct. As it is a cleaned version of File:MatteoRicciProminentConvert.jpg, it is fairly easy to add the author (Anthansius Kircher) and date (1667)--Tomcat (7) 16:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It is done. Great suggestion! --(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng) 17:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * first batach
 * I am not sure about the "[i.e., the Christian God]" note.
 * hanteng: Me neither. Fixed with original quote with a clickable reference.


 * "but here they had a problem" - something like "but encountered a problem."
 * hanteng: indeed, further improved with a footnote/citation


 * I think more text is needed in some sections, eg "Kangxi's ban". I think more content should be added about the responses of other Chinese people, their response of Kangxi's opinion, etc.
 * hanteng: I have tried to find additional reliable sources and expanded the article a bit, adding a few paragraphs and a section called "Qianlong's reinforcement". I have also found and included a sentence on the role of Chinese converts. Note that the literature also acknowledges the gap: "the role of the Chinese converts has been largely ignored". Thus, I am not sure how much I can improve per WP:NOR policy based on reliable sources available.


 * " Dec. 8th 1939" - should read "December 8, 1939" or "8 December 1939" per MOS:DATE. Same with "Dec. 8, 1939" in the lead
 * hanteng: done.


 * Was there any controversy after that one?
 * hanteng: not sure if i understand your question here. Judging from the literature, Catholic Church seems to be fine with the status quo. I am not sure if the Protestant Church should be considered. It seems to me that the Protestants may still have issues with Chinese rites (see ). However, I do not think this should be included here in this entry since it is a bit off-topic for me. Of course, if any reliable sources can be found, they should be considered and then included.


 * I would change "Jesuit Missionaries in China" to "Background"
 * hanteng: done.


 * I would link Confucius in the lead
 * hanteng: Good point. Linked


 * You state eight popes considered the case, but I only see four mentioned. What were the other four pope's responses?
 * hanteng: The phrase "eight popes" was included from the source, but I see your point per WP:INTRO. Fixed here with original quote of "eight popes" included in cite template, but not in the main text.


 * "Joachim Bouvet" is not mentioned in the article. Was he notable to be included here?
 * hanteng: indeed, fixed with other more relevant internal links for the see also section


 * "The controversy" -> probably "Controversy" per MOS:HEAD
 * hanteng: indeed, fixed


 * In the references, p. should be changed to pp. if there are more than one page
 * hanteng: Fixed here


 * Ref 15 "Chinese astronomy and the Jesuit mission: an encounter of cultures": consider adding isbn, page, etc
 * hanteng: (Needham1958 fixed with OCLC and url). ISBN not available, use OCLC and url instead-- Fixed here


 * Ref 16, I can not see the mention of "Mantienne" in the further reading section. Same goes for some other similar footnotes.--Tomcat (7) 19:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * hanteng: Does this fix of multiple edits work? Three references are isolated right after the refs. Two non-English references are listed as Further readings with appropriate language icons.

Tomcat's comments are to the point, detailed and helpful. I hope that I have addressed all of them satisfactorily. However, given the limitations on the coverage of the literature and WP:due policy, I am not sure if I can answer all the factual questions raised by Tomcat based on the sources available (e.g. who are the eight popes and what were the Chinese response to Kangxi's ban?) Nonetheless, I appreciate Tomcat's questions and am open to any further suggestions to make it closer to the GA status. --(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng) 13:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * hanteng's overall remark on the first batch of comments by Tomcat