Talk:Strange Beasts of China

Please note that this article is the product of a WikiEdu course project.
The article is still being perfected, so we beg your indulgence for a bit of time.

&#42;Yseut229* (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, move up the last section and divide it into two: adaptation and style &#42;Yseut229* (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Lead Link to Jeremy Tiang’s Wikipedia page through his name? Link to New York Times like you did the Washington Post Great job keeping it concise and objective!

Summary “Her cousin’s daughter”-> Could be said in a simpler way, i.e: “her cousin and her daughter Lucia” or “her cousin and niece Lucia” The word “her” is redundant in each item of the list because every item begins with the same possessive pronoun. Great ending though; I love the last sentence!

Themes Does the word “outstanding” really portray the meaning you are trying to get across here? Since I am reading it from a completely unknowledgeable point of view in regards to your book, I don’t quite understand what you mean by this sentence.

Beasts Is there a reason the section on sorrowful beasts is so much longer than the other sections? Capitalization of the names for the beasts is confusing me a bit. Does the first word get capitalized or not? Consistency here would go a long way towards enhancing the professionalism of the article. In the flourishing beasts section, change the word “hat” to “that.”

Translation Second paragraph could use a citation, especially since it contains material that could be seen as an opinion.

Authorship Style and Inspiration Are you sure this should come at the end of your article? I think it might be better served earlier on, but that’s just my personal preference.

Overall Great job guys! I think you did a wonderful job getting the tone Wikipedia requires, and I was really impressed with the quality of your work!

Lead: The lead was concise and straight to the point. I feel that if contains all the relevant information to briefly sum up the entire article. The only thing (and I'm not sure if this is necessarily an issue or not) is that you mention the critical reception of your book in the lead, but this is not expounded on or mentioned anywhere else in the remainder of the article.

Content: While reading your article, I could not think of many areas where content was either lacking or was irrelevant. I would like to see some more information of the themes of the book if available, however, since it seems based off the rest of the article that your book is heavy in symbolism and allegory.

Tone and Balance: The tone throughout the article remains neutral and there are no instances of bias or any personal opinion. Good

Sources and References: I appreciate the abundance of sources used throughout the article. However, I noticed that the translation section has quite a few sentences with no reference, so you might want to add to that a little bit so that it is clearer that those are not your own words/thoughts. Additionally, I like how there is a hyperlink for every single mention of a topic/idea/person, etc. that has its own wiki page.

Organization: For the most part, the article looks well organized, and I think the order of the headings makes sense. I did notice however, that in the Beasts section, the organization/structure of the beast descriptions is a little discrepant. The first description of the sorrowful beasts is longer and more of a paragraph form while the rest of the descriptions are brief and straightforward. It feels a bit unbalanced.

Images and Media: No images or media on the page, but I also noticed that its harder to find uncopyrighted media for a newly translated book.

Overall: I think you guys have done a great job so far! The article not only flows well but is interesting to read without crossing over into a non-neutral tone. Crepting (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Crepting

To Kazamzam
Hello, This article was a college class project for an honors literature class. Much of the deleted content in your “revised” version was removed without explanation. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to make mass edits like that at once; it is supposed to be completed in smaller segments so that an explanation can be provided. I would appreciate a more in-depth reason for your mass deletion of many of our thoroughly cited information. If you would read the sources that are cited at the end of every idea, you would be able to find all the information that I have discussed. I added the citations to the end of every single sentence to try to make it more clear for you. Could you be more clear about the sources that have been “lifted?” I would like a chance to make my wording more original instead of having to let go of my content. It is unclear to me exactly what you are talking about, because I worked pretty hard to put the information into my own words.

Thanks! Sleepwhenyouredead (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

A few points to clarify:

One, my edit was not a mass deletion. A mass deletion would be removing entire chunks of the article, or blanking the entire article itself and leaving nothing in its place. That I condensed your words does not constitute a 'mass deletion'. I also provided an edit summary (an explanation), and you are able to review the exact changes made. Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone (see WP:HTBAE). You do not own or have exclusive rights this article or the content (see WP:OWN). You not liking my edits doesn't mean they are entirely incorrect or fail to meet community-based standards.

Two, there is no rule for how Wikipedia editors are "supposed to" edit (see WP:Bold). Large-scale edits happen all the time and, as long as they meet Wikipedia standards and are sufficiently sourced without copyrighted material, can and do stand. I removed 653 words from this article which is relatively small compared to, for example, the 7000+ words I added to Apistogramma agassizii two weeks ago. I edited specific parts of the article that were not aligned with common article standards, (i.e. the template for the title in Mandarin, separate translator line in the infobox, removed a link from the word narrator), added citations, and condensed sections for readability and flow to keep pertinent information together. It is important that Wikipedia, for accessibility purposes, be easily readable, and this was also the goal for adding the Mandarin language template. I was surprised that you reverted this considering that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it and it is standard practice on pages with non-English text/titles. For the purposes of your assignment, I would recommend reverting some of those changes for future readers.

Three, phrasing: it seemed to me, comparing the articles cited and what was written, that a lot of the wording used was very similar to the articles referenced. Is that because there are only so many ways to convey the same sentence? Sure, probably. If you think your wording is fine and is sufficiently original, you can revert to your original phrasing. However I also thought that some of the phrasing was awkward in and of itself. I thought the sentences "Yan Ge knows that Chinese censorship will eliminate much of her story in the series, but has come to terms with it. She says that since she wrote the book a long time ago, she will not be offended by the omissions in the adaptation." were quite clunky, did not have an encyclopedic tone, and could have been improved. Also, the link did not work when I tried to open it at the time (it does now) so that is easily resolved. It was my mistake to remove information that had been adequately cited and I apologize for that. Best of luck with your assignment and happy editing. Kazamzam (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your communication! I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so when I saw the large blocks of red content it definitely made me a little upset. I was mostly confused at your removal of information in the "critical reception" section and the details in the "inspiration" section; there did not seem to be an explanation for that in your revisions, but like I said, I am new to navigating this and could still be missing something.

Since this was a WikiEdu project, we went through several weeks of training before we started the article. The guidelines taught to us in WikiEdu modules explained to make changes one at a time so you could detail what each change was. So, there might not be written "rules" about that, but it is the method that our training modules instructed us to publish changes. Because of this, I assumed that these were general user guidelines.

I believe my teacher reverted the edits that you made so that she could grade the work of myself and my group mates; knowing her intentions, I do think she will revert your edits when she is done.

Sincerely, I do appreciate your contributions and feedback! I just needed a little more communication about them:) Sleepwhenyouredead (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)