Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cai Lun/archive1

Cai Lun

 * Nominator(s): Aza24 (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

He invented paper, but you've never heard of him? Well don't worry, most people outside of East Asia haven't—and he didn't "invent" paper exactly, but his improvements were so pivotal that he is credited with the invention, at least in its modern form. Not only this, but he certainly had an interesting (albeit mostly unknown) life, full of palace intrigue. This article has been a project of mine for a little over a year, and I've dug deep to find sufficient sourcing. I primarily rely on two authorities on the subject: Tsien Tsuen-hsuin and Rafe de Crespigny; de Crespigny even kindly gave me valuable feedback via email on the article's state. Thanks to, and  for their invaluable suggestions;  for providing various translations; and  for his first-class copy editing. And of course, thanks in advance to any who are able to review. Aza24 (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Image review
Nikkimaria beat me to it, but I also found
 * Don't use fixed px size
 * Removed
 * Suggest adding alt text
 * Will consider doing so, though it may be tomorrow
 * File:刘炟.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Cai_Lun_with_Donchō_and_Mochizuki_Seibee_(Minobu_Museum_of_History_and_Folklore).jpg
 * Added PD-1996 to both
 * File:Making_Paper.gif needs a source and a US tag
 * Added source & PD-1996
 * File:Hunan_International_Economics_University23.jpg: commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/China suggests there may be some complications around using images like this
 * Hmm the issue is that there's no author/creator given, but I'd be surprised if the artist's name was even recorded anywhere.
 * How old is the statue? If we can show it's PD, there is no issue, but if there's still copyright then there are issues. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure, I'll see if Nlu can read the chinese on the pedestal. Aza24 (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Cai-lun.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Added new source and PD-1996
 * I added some tags that I think cover the issues. Only thing I'm un-sure about is the Hunan_International_Economics_University23 situation, if you could offer further insight. Aza24 (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Cai Lun.jpg Not PD-US because of URAA (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Does PD-1996 work for this? Aza24 (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, because 1962+50 is after 1996. A lot of Commons files are not free in the US for this reason! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm,, so would the picture ever be in US copyright in the future? Just trying to figure out how this works. Aza24 (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It would get the standard 95 years after first publication, see the Hirtle chart. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah I see—now replaced. Aza24 (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Aza24, how is this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed the Hunan University memorial so I think everything is addressed now. Aza24 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * was the original image reviewer for this, although I don't see any outstanding issues I think she would have to sign off on it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be good if we could approximate a publication date for File:刘炟.jpg. Otherwise good. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The closest I could find was sometime during the Ming dynasty; now added. Aza24 (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment
Wouldn't it be easier for the reader to follow if this gif instead used the multiple image template to show them all at once in the right order? Right now it is pretty annoying that each image is only displayed at a very limited interval. You can see what I mean in for example the quagga article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, I've adjusted it to about five seconds per image which (I think) works nicely now. Aza24 (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * I'm making a number of hands-on edits as we go. Feel free to revert or change any you do not like.
 * No need, all looks great Aza24 (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I might cut back on the number of parentheticals, translations, etc in the lede. It's a bit distracting and makesita bit hard to read.
 * Removed all the parenthesis except one—tried to incorporate the Chinese titles into the text, hopefully that helps
 * In the lede, you say Song was An's grandmother; in the body you say mother. Also, the lede says there was a false rumor Cai intended to harm An, this isn't backed up in the body.
 * Good catch, changed to grandmother for both
 * When multiple refs are used, they aren't in numerical order at present. Is there a reason why they aren't?
 * No reason, I actually meant to bundle them so have done so now. They should all be good; for the dagger refs I've kept them after the normal ones regardless as they're primary sources and thus different numbering, if that makes sense.
 * That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all addressed I believe. Aza24 (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
I struggled to take everything in on first read-through, but that was mainly because of my complete unfamiliarity with the subject, and at a second perusal I found the article clear, easy to follow and very readable. A few passing comments:
 * "into which Han Chinese had immigrated to..." – one preposition too many.
 * Indeed, changed to "where Han Chinese had immigrated for"
 * "chamberlain for the royal family" – is it OK to use "royal" and "imperial" interchangeably? (Being more at home in 19th-century French history I know one didn't refer to Emperor Napoleon III's family as "royal", but perhaps it was different in China in Cai's time.)
 * My feeling is that scholars have their own preferences, but to your point this is the only time I use "royal" in the article, so I've changed to "imperial"
 * "with the intention of instilling him as heir" – unexpected verb – not sure how one instils an heir.
 * Oops, yes, changed to "installing", but suggestions welcome
 * I found the constantly changing images in the third illustration a bit distracting, but one gets used to them, and I suppose they're harmless enough. A slightly longer gap between images would be less dizzying.
 * (Afterthought: it was ungracious of me not to say that it is a clever way of getting all the images in, but it is and I now do.)
 * Thanks! But yes, FunkMonk has just pointed this out above as well—I largely agree, though my attempts at slowing it down myself were unsuccessful. I've inquired at the technical pump to see if others can assist.

Those are my few comments and quibbles. I'll look in again and, I'm confident, add my support.  Tim riley  talk   14:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Chinese printed above the Hòu Hànshū translation is presumably the original Chinese of the same text, but it isn't absolutely clear that this is so, and in any case I wonder what is gained by having the original reproduced in the main text. It's not usual to have extensive quotations in both original and translation in the body of an article, and I don't find it helpful.
 * Removed, it's already in a note there anyways
 * "to report to the Ministry of Justice in order to answer the charges" – there are those who get aerated about "in order to" and insist it must be just "to". It doesn't bother me, but you could indeed lose two words here without affecting the meaning.
 * Good catch, changed to your suggestion
 * "In his 1978 book, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, author Michael H. Hart…" – as you tell us it's his book do you need then tell us that Hart is the author? (I say nothing about the false title, here or elsewhere, as the article is in AmE.)
 * Certainly not—changed. On the false title, in this case I believe the "The" is actually apart of the book's title, if I understand the situation correctly
 * No, what I was glancing at is the AmE habit (distressing to fastidious users of the Queen's English) of using the tabloidese false title ("a comment by tiresome pedant Tim Riley") in formal English. In good BrE prose that would be "the tiresome pedant...". But as the article is in AmE the false title is something up with which we shall have to put.  Tim riley  talk   23:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In the Deification and remembrance section "it fell into ruin again and had to be restored" strikes a slightly editorial note. It didn't have to be restored, surely, although it was?
 * Indeed, changed
 * I take the sources on trust, obviously, but they look authoritative to my layman's eye.
 * As far as I can remember I haven't seen a FA in which authorlinks were repeated in the Bibliography section – Tsien Tsuen-Hsuin linked three times, for instance – but again, there's no harm in it.
 * Usually I wouldn't do such a thing, but my logic here is that in using those sfn refs— (your favorite approach, I'm sure :) —the reader might hover over the Tsien Tsuen-Hsuin 2011 ref in the text to get to the link, but yes I'm not really committed to one way or another. Aza24 (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , your comments are most appreciated and valuable! Thank you for taking the time; I believe I've addressed everything, save for the gif (which I am still trying to figure out how to slow down) and the authorlinks, which I gave my (rather weak) explanation for above. Best - Aza24 (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support promotion to FA. Clearly meets all the FA criteria in my opinion.  Tim riley  talk   23:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Tim, also, the gif should be working smoothly now. Aza24 (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

 * I would encourage you to add ALT text to all the images used in the article (i.e. the one in the infobox and the four in the body of the article).
 * Done, though I'm not sure how well I did them
 * It looks good to me, but I am not particularly good at ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * When referencing the marquis title, I would link to the Marquess article as it does a part about its case with ancient China. I think this would be helpful to readers who are unfamiliar with this.
 * Linked
 * For this part, the compass, gunpowder, papermaking and printing, I think the printing link could be counted as an Easter egg as I was expecting the link to go to an article on printing not necessarily the history. This part is in both the lead and the body of the article.
 * Ooo yes, good catch—switched to just the standard printing article
 * This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance. In the body of the article, the word eunuch is first referenced in this quote, Cai Lun was, after all, a palace eunuch, from the "Sources" section so I believe the link should be moved up to this instance. With that being said, I have seen mixed messages about linking items in quotes. I personally do it, but I have run into editors who prefer to not do this. What is your opinion about this?
 * Hmm I didn't do the second link on purpose, so linking the first time makes sense—now done
 * In this translation, Attendent at the Yellow Gates, is attendant purposefully misspelled?
 * No! Fixed
 * Would it be beneficial to link concubine to either the Chinese concubinage redirect or the Concubinage in China article? It may be excessive, but I just wanted to ask as it was something that crossed my mind while reading the article.
 * I looked around a bit but couldn't find much need for it; the Imperial Chinese harem system is already linked
 * Makes sense to me. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I am uncertain if this part, As a eunuch-only position, he, is grammatically correct as it is literally describing him as a "eunuch-only position". Maybe something along the lines of would be better?
 * Good point, have changed to more or less your wording ("While in this eunuch-only position")
 * Your version is actually better. Thank you for the revision for this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have a question about this part, he is mostly unknown outside of East Asia from the lead. He was mentioned in a 2007 Time issue and got a crater named after him by the International Astronomical Union so there is at least some international recognition. I agree that he is lesser known internationally than in East Asia, but I am uncertain if "mostly unknown" is the right word choice. Is there a source/part of the article that supports?
 * My initial thought is that the assertion remains accurate—I double checked with what Hart said about it, and he seemed fairly adamant on Cai's unrecognizability. To be honest, I have no idea how I found that Time article and the moon crater is not as unusual when one considers there are both over 9000 craters and a tradition of naming them after scientists/explorers :) Happy to discuss further though. Aza24 (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. Since the unrecognizability can be supported by a citation, it works me for me. And you are correct that there are just so many craters (and other things) that get named after people and that does not necessarily reflect on their popularity and recongnizability. It looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful work with the article. It is great to see more diversity in the FAC space. I am only focusing on the prose. My only knowledge of East Asia and its history comes from Japanese language courses, and that does not help me here at all lol. The article was very engaging and compelling and even though I know very little about Chinese history, I very much enjoyed reading this and learning at least a little more. I would be more than happy to support once my relatively minor notes are addressed. Have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much and apologies on my late responses. Your comments have definitely resulted in many improvements—I believe I've addressed everything. Aza24 (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am glad that I could help. And no need to apologize. I support this article for promotion. It would be great to see something like this as a FA. I hope you have a great rest of your week and start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review

 * Be consistent about how you reference material. Forex all of your early cites use abbreviations for the title, but are listed in the bibliography under their authors. #12 has a similar issue.
 * This is because they're more like compilers than authors—I've now clarified this and ordered them by Chinese names in the bibliography
 * Fair enough, but the formats need to match between the bibliography and the citations. Right now you're using titles in the cites for the compilations, but listing them by the compilers in the bibliography.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's still a mismatch between how the bibliography lists Dongguan Hanji, etc. versus how the early citations refer to the books. Please use the compiler's name, then the title as a disambiguator for the early citations.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I'm a bit confused —but if the issue is that the citations (i.e. ref 12) use the name of the work rather than the compiler, that is the standard in the literature—the works are never identified by their compilers when cited. Aza24 (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. All other sources use authors so it becomes a consistency issue. I think though that the easiest thing to do is consistently refer to them by their titles in the cites and the bibliography, which would match their scholarly treatment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree and I think the sources are formatted as such already. Aza24 (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Cai Lun appears to be the author of Dongguan Hanji and Hou Hanshu in the early bibliography, but looking at the template code, they appear to be chapters in the compilations. I think that the simplest thing to do is to delete the chapter info and simply refer to them by their titles as done throughout the rest of the article. So take care of this and we'll be done here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks . Aza24 (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Spell out abbreviations like DH or HHS so a reader doesn't have to hover over them to know what they refer to.
 * Done
 * Standardize on putting translated names of authors and titles first so readers can find them without using the hyperlinks
 * Not 100% sure what you mean, but if I understand it correctly, I don't think it's possible with the template
 * You're correct for titles, but not for authors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Tsien 1962 and Yardley need to have their titles put in title case
 * Done
 * Provide translations for Shou qi
 * Done
 * Spotchecks made on sourcing
 * The ISBN for Blake doesn't match what's on WorldCat; other ISBNs spotchecked--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed—fixed
 * Thanks —everything is addressed I believe Aza24 (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Still a few issues remaining.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've ordered the early citations by titles and put the names of the English authors first. Aza24 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, where are we on this? Aza24 (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * ? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments and support from Horsesizedduck
I have made a tiny adjustment of commas, and spotted some odd sentences I'd like to improve. I find the article to be of high-quality, and support it for FA.Horsesizedduck (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Horsesizedduck! Aza24 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

What are the general opinions regarding the GIF? I've noticed the discussion around it, but found that the alternatives weren't considered for long: what would a multiple image template look like here? Would it perhaps take too much space? Horsesizedduck (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably too much space for an article which is otherwise not huge. It used to be way faster but I've slowed it down to around five seconds per image, which I think works nicely now. Aza24 (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)