Template:Did you know nominations/Dragon kiln


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Dragon kiln

 * ... that Chinese dragon kilns for pottery (excavated example pictured) ran up hillsides, and could be 135 metres long and fire 25,000 pieces or more at a time? Source: most of it here
 * Reviewed: Master of the Drapery Studies

Created by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 16:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The image is appropriately licensed, the hook facts are cited inline and the article is neutral. I could not assess whether there were any copyright issues because the sources were largely unavailable to me, but Earwig found no problems. The wording of the hook is what troubles me. As kilns can't run, it would be better to state that they are built on a slope, unless your aiming for a quirky slot "... that Chinese dragon kilns ran uphill?" The other problem is with the figures in the hook. The 60 meter kiln can fire 25,000 items, and the 135 meter kiln more, possible running into six figures; you can't really mix these up and select the figures that are most convenient to state. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Both are given as maxima, in the conditional, and are the highest figures in the sources I have. All these figures for capacity in pieces are modern estimates & equally vague.  "25,000 pieces or more" is accurate - I have seen 40k somewhere in the past, but can't remember where. As to "ran", OED "run" Verb, 30 "To extend or stretch..." goes back to Chaucer, with several examples given of buildings or parts of them "running" (balustrades never do anything else), certainly a very common usage in any writing concerned with architecture. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC).
 * I think we are talking at cross purposes here. The hook as written implies that the 135 metre kiln can fire 25,000 or more pieces, whereas that figure has no particular relevance to that kiln. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The 135 metre kiln would be in the "more" group, yes. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Indeed it would be in the "more" group, but I think it is misleading. I can see that we do not agree about this so I will ask for the opinion of another reviewer (although I think a quirky hook as suggested above would get plenty of clicks). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no "that kiln". The length figure is a general maximum; various sources estimate quantities, the highest being "hundreds of thousands" for Longquan celadon, here.  But I have erred on the side of caution, & left that in a note, although it is 2014, vs. 1997 for Kerr's cited source. Very likely more excavation accounts have been published (in Chinese, as always), but the relevant note is not on preview. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be prepared to approve this if it were reworded to
 * ALT1 ... that Chinese dragon kilns for pottery (excavated example pictured) ran up hillsides, could be 135 metres long and could fire tens of thousands of pieces at a time?
 * Ok, fine with that. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Approving ALT1. Although I suggested ALT1, it contains no new facts so I think I am permitted to approve it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)