Talk:Feng shou

I have never heard of this martial art. I find the information to be pointless and not very useful and part of it should perhaps be integrated into a broader file and the rest discarded. Of course, there are many martial arts that are small in size but this one has never showed up as an internal style before and thus the information seems poor at best. (comment by Oalsaker restored by Medains 13:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC))


 * A great system of Daoist exercise for health and self defence. It incapsultes the essence of Daoism which is about 'doing' and has a philosophy and structured approach that one can dedicate a whole lifetime to studying. Ancient and modern, both in harmony. (comment by 217.44.71.191)

We who?
"It is an internal or ‘soft’ martial art, which means that we use the principles of relaxation, giving greater control over movement, balance and speed." (comment by 24.11.29.31)

Gentle and hard water?
"Silk Earth – arms & hands – muscle change T’ai Chi Silk form is a mixture of slow and fast movements representing the gentleness and hardness, of water." (comment by 24.11.29.31)

Separate Art from Taijiquan?
This whole article seems to be an advert for the Li Style Taoist Cultural Arts, which seems to be the only organization teaching this. Whilst this appears to be a combination of Li style T'ai Chi Ch'uan and other arts taught by that school, perhaps it would be better as a part of the Li Style page than a separate article? -- Medains 13:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Martial Arts Project quality scale
The article quality is far below B standard. It needs much more work - some pictures would be nice.Peter Rehse 00:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Currently under proposal to merge with Li style T'ai Chi Ch'uan, which might move that article up a bit in class -- Medains 08:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the scale itself needs work. I classified this article as a "B" based on the descriptions in the Quality scale, not based on its position on the quality scale list.  "B" is listed above "Start," but its criteria describes an article that needs more work than a "Start" article.  From the beginning: "Has several of the elements described in 'start'," - it doesn't need to have all of the elements of a "start" article, only several of them.  The description goes on to say that "B" articles may have language issues, NPOV issues, or violate the NOR policy.  None of these issues are listed as criteria for a "start" article.  By that measure, this article is a "B," not a "start," and a "B" actually needs more work than a "start."
 * Simply, I didn't think this article was even up to the standards laid out in the "start" criteria, but the "B" criteria, actually being less stringent, seemed to describe this article aptly. I guess I'll add my two cents on the grading scheme talk page about this, too... -Erik Harris 19:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the main difference is that the main work needed for a Start is simply adding more material, whereas once an article reaches B-Class the work is more focused on improving the quality of the existing material. That may lead to a false impression of the relative ranking.  I want to spend a bit of time next month on revamping the global definitions, providing a range of examples, etc.  I'll bear in mind this issue when I do this.   Thanks, Walkerma 19:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)