Talk:Ouyang Xiu

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): 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.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Well, I think it's a very good article, especially given the nature of the subject, but there are some problems that prevent me from promoting this to GA status at the moment, although nothing that I believe can't be done in seven days.

To begin with, the lead needs some work. Most importantly, it needs to be expanded so that it at least touches upon/covers/somewhat summarizes every major aspect of the article itself. Right now it's only two sentences long; it should a through summary would expand to one, maybe two full paragraphs. In addition, the list of his names is very awkward as it's sort of plunked down in the middle of the first sentence. I would suggest either making his list of names its own sentence in the lead (ie. "In his time, he would have also been known by the courtesy name...") or, if you feel up to it, try and expand and integrate it into the body of the article itself.

The image in the infobox requires a caption that explains the context of the picture to someone who is just reading the article and doesn't click on the picture itself. Is it a contemporary drawing of subject? Was it drawn several centuries after by artists interpreting his story? Is it a modern artists' rendition of the subject? Also, is it known who drew it or not? If so, who was the artist?

You seem to have access to a lot of good, reliable sources, but a lot of things remain without in-line citations in this article. Since this is a historical figure, it cannot be assumed that anything in the article is common knowledge (I mean of course, anything about the subject of the article) so everything has the potential to be challenged and thus everything should have an inline citation. For example, in "Early life" you stop citing after the citation for his father dying. Since known history of this period and figure are by no means complete, things like the year he passed his degree exam or that he was largely self-taught need be directly pointed to in the works that you're citing so that they can be verified (well, at least by someone who has the books...). Also, because of the lack of citations, it's hard to tell if there's any original research here. I suspect that since you're an established editor, there's not, but I have no way of verifying that without citations. Also, a non-established editor could easily slip something in that sounds convincing but is completely false - without citations its impossible to tell. This is a problem in all of the main sections, although apparentely the lead does not need to be fully cited (although it can if you choose to do so). Also, all citations need to abide by the standards set out in WP:CITET.

I think the prose is excellent, baring a few tiny things I fixed myself, but one thing I noticed is that the job of a "collator of texts" should either be briefly explained or wikilinked so that uncultured slobs like myself people who are unfamiliar with the term can get an idea of what it is. Also, all the ref tags should touch the punctuation/word that comes before it... I think I caught a lot, but not all of that.

The legacy section could use some expansion, if possible. He seems like an important figure - what other lasting impacts on contemporary and future culture did he have? Who else cites him as an influence or an important figure in history? You say that his poetry dealt with new themes never before touched on - did his dealing of these themes encourage others to do so or no? Did his themes last a long time or was it a passing fad? Was he chastised for these new themes, lauded or was it generally ignored at the time? You don't have to answer all of these questions, of course, but these are the types of things that could be used to expand the legacy section. An expanded legacy section would also help ensure the neutrality of the article - specifically that all significant views are represented.

I think this is enough to deal with for now. I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without any further notice. Once you've dealt with all of these things, I'll go over it again and make any more suggestions that I feel are necessary before passing the article. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask and thank you for your work so far! Cheers, CP 21:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have started working on the comments. Number six has been done.  The image is now captioned. ludahai 魯大海 02:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just expanded the intro and rewrote part to make it smoother. I did it without removing content placed there by previous editors, but there are a couple of things that I feel may not belong, but would like your opinion - that regarding the nickname discussion - before moving it.  ludahai 魯大海 02:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, ask away here or on my talk page (if I've missed the actual question, apologies, just getting over being sick and my mind is a bit cloudy) Cheers, CP 16:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the Early Life section and added complete references. I also expanded the reference for the Mote book, but I can't for the other book or articles as I do not have them in my possession.  ludahai 魯大海 03:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I just checked, and my university library has copies of all of the remaining books and articles that we need available. (That is, the ones listed under the "references" section, besides Mote) I might be too busy today, but I will do my best to pick them up as soon as possible and see how they fit into the article.--Danaman5 15:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No rush at all. It was my own mistake for not alerting Ludahai earlier about the review, and I have no problem extending a hold if comments are being actively addressed, as they are in this case. Cheers, CP 16:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both of you. The teamwork exhibited here is an example of the best of the ideals of Wikipedia.  ludahai 魯大海 22:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

CP, where are we at right now in your opinion? ludahai 魯大海 14:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Much, much closer than when I first reviewed the article, I'll re-read it tomorrow and update my GA checklist above to give you a better idea of exactly what's left to be done. Also, though it's not mandatory for GA, the below comment on footnotes (and only the one on footnotes) has a point. Combining similar references under the ref name tag would clean up the page a lot, and would be essential to A Class or FA Class. Cheers, CP 01:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to give everyone an update, I have acquired the remaining sources from my university library, and I will probably use them to cite all remaining material tomorrow. At that point, the article can just have one section, "Notes and references", that will contain all bibliographic information, and the current, rather unhelpful "references" section can be removed.  I will condense the Mote references at the same time.--Danaman5 04:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Update
OK, I have updated the GA checklist above, but will put my comments here to give a section break from previous comments.
 * 1) The lead still needs expansion per WP:LEAD. It needs to touch upon a little bit more detail and expand its broadness slightly to accurately cover the article. One of the proposed plans for the Wikipedia CD was that it only contain the leads of articles - so keep that in mind when working on it, write it as if that were going to be the only thing people would read in this article. What would you want/need covered? You wouldn't want too much detail, but you wouldn't want to leave things out either.
 * 2) The citations are progressing very nicely. The second paragraph in the Historian section, as well as the final bit in the Legacy section need citations, but otherwise everything seems pretty good.
 * 3) The legacy section still needs expansion, per my original comments.

So you're much closer now! Once the above points have been met, I'll go through it once more to fix up any minor things that I find, but that should be pretty much it. Good luck! Cheers, CP 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the article has been on hold for seven days plus the time of the original hold, and it seems to have grown stale. Unless I can be convinced otherwise, I might have to fail this nomination for now. If I do choose to do that, remember that it can be re-nominated at any time once my concerns have been addressed. Cheers, CP 15:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I got some of the references from my library, but unfortunately, I grabbed only the first volume of Sung Biographies, and it turned out that there were two. Then, when I looked at the references that I had, it seemed that none of the unreferenced info was really covered by these refs anyway.  I've been really busy recently, and probably won't be able to do much more until the weekend, at least.--Danaman5 20:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I'm going to have to fail this article at the moment. Please do not take this as a discouragement. Once these last three concerns have been addressed, it may be renominated for GA status. To expedite the process, please let me know when/if you re-nominate this article and I will re-review it so that a) You don't get a reviewer unfamiliar with the work so far and b) I can review it quickly when it is re-nominated.

Good luck with the article! Cheers, CP 04:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Footnote common sense
If you write an article on the Tower of London you needn't insert a footnote that it is really in London. The fact that it is there is common knowledge. Likewise most of the facts re. Ouyang are common knowledge found in a variety of sources. Fred Mote's book is hardly a definitive source. Wiki rules on footnotes is "This page is a guideline, not a policy." A good location to quote the Mote book is footnote 33 where you can include all the Mote page numbers, which are about six or more. The facts of Ouyang's life are concludeed at that point. Also the box to the right hand side with the Chinese needs to go as well. It is useless to English readers. You need to　unclutter the article and make it more appealing to the eye.--Iwanafish 00:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Initially, there weren't so many footnotes. I added them as the request of the GA review.  I agree that most facts of Ouyang Xiu's life are not contested by those of us who study Chinese history, but there aren't many in the English speaking world.  Again, I am willing to go with either way of doing the footnotes, so long as their is consistency.  Why isn't Professor Mote's book considered a definitive source?  Do you have any counter sources?  His book is well researched and well referenced.  As for the infobox, it was there before I came to work on this article and is commonly used for Chinese historical personages.  ludahai 魯大海 02:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitive Ouyang
The best (and perhaps the only) is Ou-Yang Hsiu: An Eleventh-Century Neo-Confucianist by James T. Liu, Stanford, 1967? Also get rid of the Chinese on the right hand side. Useless for English readers. Clutter, clutter!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.194.2.197 (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Footnote consolidation
I have reviewed good articles before, and too many footnotes is a reason to fail an article. There is no reason to have consecutive footnotes with the same page number unless they are in separate paragraphs. I have taken the liberty of removing the extras. Zeus1234 20:29, 5 October 2007

Efermero assertion
Efermero`s claim that an article was a plagarism of James is a claim that an author engaged in an illegal　act. He should beware.--Iwanafish (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Iwanafish you are probably unaware of Hispanic names and you are male. The author in question 'Bruce E. Carpenter' and his work is questionable. The insertion of a questionable article into this otherwise fine article is not required nor desired.


 * When a whole sentence less one word from one author is used by another author without proper accreditation, this is called plagiarism. When it is repeated, it confirms the behavior. Insertion of your own so-called supporting article into another fine article is called self promotion.


 * You have two choices. One is to accept the questionable article is not needed. The second is to post the questionable article pages so those on this page can review it. Then ludahai 魯大海 and other can choose for themselves to reject or accept it.


 * I still believe this fine article does not need the additional of a questionable supporting article. Enfermero (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC

ENFERMERO DISHONESTY
I have both articles before me and they have nothing to do with one another. Enfermero made the claim of plagerism, but gives no evidence. This is because there isn't any. The Liu article is a political biography while the other deals with aesthetics. She insists that I am guilty until I prove myself innocent. I can only guess where she comes from.--Iwanafish (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Post your article where others can see it. Or provide a valid link. Your article is now no longer where it used to be listed under the older TUR articles. Your "ISSN" number is not properly linked and un-verifiable. How about providing a valid ISBN number? You need to let others involved with this article to make the decision. I will be happy to let them judge for themselves. This way there can be no question. In the mean time, if it is not verified, it should not be listed. Let be repeat - non-verified material should be deleted per WP policy. The questionable article is:
 * Carpenter, Bruce E., 'Confucian Aesthetics and Eleventh Century Ou-yang Hsiu' in Tezukayama University Review (Tezukayama Daigaku Ronshu) Nara, Japan, 1988, no. 59, pp. 111-118. ISSN 0385-7743
 * Enfermero (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

ENFERMERO MISINFORMATION

University journals in Japan have ISSN numbers and can be found at the CiNii (National Institute of Informatics) and elsewhere. Japanese university journals do not have ISBN numbers. The article in question cannot be "linked" directly on a wiki page, but can be found easily through a manual search, or directly the CiNii site mentioned above. Many Japanese journals have articles in English, but present various access difficulties. Enfermero is out of her depth. She has also accused the author of the article in question of plagarism. Slander is illegal at least in the USA.--Iwanafish (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Iwanafish you have a new message on your user talk page. See the section "Ouyang Xiu." Enfermero (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Tags placed with hostile intent. Will remove.--Daikusama (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Daikusama is Japanese for Mr. Carpenter. Apparently a sockpuppet for Iwanafish. Questionable item removed from article. Enfermero (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit War or what?
I am not sure what is going on here. Based on the material above this article was a pending a GA (good article). It appears that some sources or references were not appropiate and despite editors being nice, one editor ruined this article's chance for GA status. AND it is still going on. Nothing above indicates "hostile intent." It appears a possible case of editors using aliasses. This may need administrator review. It may also be a case of self promotion who knows what else. At a minimum the issues need to be discussed or shown to AND not just declaring something hostile when no evidence is seen or given. Edit warring through aliases is taken very seriously. Jrcrin001 (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.custom-essay.net/essay-encyclopedia/Ouyang-Xiu-Essay.htm
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status of poem translation?
Can anyone confirm the copyright status of the English translation given for the poem, "Deep in Spring, the Rain's Passed"? It seems to come directly from Ouyang Xiu English Translations, and while the FAQ for the site does give permission for people to "print or download the site to use offline", that's hardly a Creative Commons license. Frenezulo (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Drawing of Ouyang Xiu
The caption under the drawing cannot be correct. According to the Chinese and French pages, the drawing is not "contemporary" but made in the XVIII century of Qing dynasty. @mirordor Mirrordor (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)