Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Taiwanese aborigines


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:43, 15 May 2007.

Taiwanese aborigines
Taiwanese aborigines is one of the most in-depth, comprehensive and thoroughly researched articles in WikiProject Ethnic groups. It is currently a very strong GA. Self-nomination. Co-nomination by Maowang and Ling.Nut 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment by co-nominator: Not quite sure how to respond to the removal of two images &amp;  by FAC reviewer User:Ideogram. I believe this detracts significantly from the overall quality of the article. Thanks! --Ling.Nut 16:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In general I don't think many images are necessary for an encyclopaedia article. People are supposed to read them, not look at the pretty pictures.  In this specific case the images were longer than the sections they belonged to, always a bad sign.  That said, if you decide to put them back I won't argue with you.  --Ideogram 16:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I will reinsert them. I also anticipated that many/all of the images in the article would be resized, but they seem a bit too small. Difficult to see any details. I'll have to look at the size of the imgs on some other FAs for comparison... Thanks! Ling.Nut 16:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The MediaWiki software automatically sizes images when you don't set the size explicitly. For logged-in users, it uses the size set in your preferences, you should go and set that if you feel they are too small.  And for anonymous users, it sets the size according to the resolution of their screen, which is a lot better than one fixed size for all users.  --Ideogram 18:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Thanks, I didn't. :-) I was looking into all the ins and outs of images. Samsara resized the map. In fact, the map was precisely what I had in mind when I was commenting earlier about the reduced size of the images. I personally dislike the small image size on other pictures as well, but it seems to be standard practice... As Samsara noted in the relevant edit summary, the text of the map is actually important to the article (far more important than the details of the photos). -- Ling.Nut 19:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this article several times on its way to getting its GA; it has been a pleasure to watch the article grow and expand and get better. The article is compelling, well referenced, uses appropriate images, is stable, and is worthy of the FA star probably more than almost any other article currently nominated. I fully support its promotion.--Jayron32| talk | contribs 02:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments. I won't support or oppose because I'm not completely familiar with FA guidelines, but I have a few comments. Overall--very good job! I found the article informative and well sourced. Cheers! --Fang Aili talk 13:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Decide whether certain words need to be capitalized: Aborigines, Plains, Mountains, Tribal, and Peoples. Be consistent throughout.
 * 2) Spell check. I noticed a few typos.
 * 3) Add a citation (or two) to the 3rd paragraph of the intro.
 * 4) The phrase "take heads" appears before that concept is explained. This was pretty jarring.
 * 5) The "Surnames and identity" section starts by talking about assimilation. But what do the aborigines name themselves? What are some examples of traditional names? What are their own customs regarding naming?
 * 6) This is a very comprehensive article. The history section is quite long. Have you considered breaking it off into a "History of Taiwanese aborigines"?

I fixed two typos and some grammar, commas...etc. I'll look into the names without adding an entire paragraph. Each group was different and held different naming systems. Thank you for your comments, you have a real good eye for copy editing :-)Maowang 02:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Taiwan's Austronesian speakers were traditionally distributed over much of the island's rugged central mountain range and concentrated in villages along the alluvial plains." -- hard to understand.
 * "The issue of an ethnic identity unconnected to the Asian mainland has become one thread in the discourse regarding the political identity of Taiwan." Surely you can say this in fewer words.
 * "The taxonomies colonizing forces imposed upon Taiwan's Aborigines through the centuries have become reified ..." I know what reified means, but I wouldn't assume my readers do.

Object I find this article hard to read. The language is unnecessarily complex. The best writing uses simple words and sentences. I do not believe this article is a good example of "brilliant prose". --Calde 02:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by co-nominator:
 * It should be noted this reviewer above has only been a member of Wikipedia for only one full day.
 * Regarding the reviewer's concerns:
 * The writing in this article is congruent with any reliable book on the topic and completely suitable for the topic. The language is specifically deliberate to ensure Taiwanese Aborigines, as a people, are given the appropriate amount of dignity and respect to their experience as humans. Another aim of this project was to decolonize the information from the traditional colonizing tropes, with regard to colonized writing as being potentially very POV. A lot of thought has gone into how to provide the best information, while being sensitive to the problem faced by many indigenous peoples of being colonized and defined by people, writers and researchers who are not indigenous. Many of the terms are specific to the decolonizing methodologies of indigenous people's writing and research, and any change in those terms may result in an unintended POV.
 * . Maowang 03:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please cite specific examples of phrases that you object to. Kusma (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have given three specific examples of difficult prose. That should be enough.  I have noted a tendency for FAC to favor heavy referencing over brilliant prose; certainly the FAC community and the FAC director are within their rights to do so, but I wish to make my objections known, for what they are worth.  --Calde 20:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see them; the way you formatted your objections made the examples look like they belong to the previous comment. Kusma (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Overall, a highly commendable article, with impressive attention to research and referencing. There are a couple of instances where the language and complexity of the sentence structures could be simplified and made more accessible. Some that caught my eye: Still, a very credible work, will probably look to support once I give it a little more of a read.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 07:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The Taiwanese Aborigines are Austronesian peoples closely related to the people of the Philippines and possibly Melanesia (from lead). What is the nature of the relationship proposed- cultural, linguistic, genetic? Also, given the Philippines has its own diversity and not all groups there are 'Austranesian', might need to qualify.
 * 2) ...shaping in part, today's political discourse within the framework of the Republic of China (ROC). I take this and the preceding passage to mean something akin to "the [arbitrary] division(s) into named subgroups [made by colonising forces] are a de facto reality nowadays; a reality which continues to influence modern political (territorial?) discussions". Is that interpretation correct, and if so, the nature of that influence is not all that clear, neither is the 'framework of ROC' part.
 * 3) The history of the Aboriginal tribes on Taiwan has often been dominated by the views and biases of foreign powers since the seventeenth century, although intertribal competition and conflict existed long before contact with non-Austronesian speakers. The 'although' conjunct does not seem to be connected with its leading proposition. It seems to me that the opening "the history of..." is trying to make the point that the documenting of the history of these peoples has been from the POV of the colonising parties, whereas the second part states just that conflict had existed before the colonisers arrived.
 * 4) Although each of Taiwan's successive colonizers participated in violent conflict and economic interaction with both the Plains and Mountain tribal groups, the impact on the groups changed over time.... A little difficult to parse, maybe should be broken up.
 * 5) The Mountain tribes were not entirely governed by these colonizing forces until the latter half of the Japanese colonial era, though the highland groups played a significant role in shaping successive colonial policies. How or what is the 'significant role in shaping...policies'? "Successive" is ambiguous here- does it mean "after the Japanese colonial era", or is it referring to the sequence of colonial powers in general?
 * 6) Also- perhaps there should be more on the island's precolonial/prehistory- for example, what do archaeological studies indicate took place in the millenia preceding the 17thC? Evidence of earlier occupation, modes of subsistence, that type of thing. It doesn't have to be extensive, but I think it would provide useful context.


 * (Reply) Thanks for your excellent comments/critique. I took the liberty of reformatting your remarks so that I could collect my replies here below yours rather than sprinkling them in between (which always confuses me)...
 * I have altered the "closely related" wording in the lede. I know that the new wording, "seem to be.." is sort of weasel-ish. However, the science itself is unclear on the subject. There is a footnote which explains this, and offers a good starting reference to those who are interested.
 * "shaping in part, today's political discourse" I have reworded that pair of sentences as per your comments.... hope it is more clear now...
 * - 5. It seems that the introductory/summary section titled "History of the Aboriginal Peoples" was a locus of problems in your reading. I have retailored it as a result of your comments; please let me know if it satisfies the points you raised.
 * 6. I'll try to research the prehistoric aspect more and insert a bit of info... Thanks! Ling.Nut 15:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply:


 * I think a Pre-history section is a related, but different topic that should only be lightly discussed on this page. This page mainly deals with the post-contact period, when "Taiwanese Aborigines" were first conceived by the people who write about them and the changes since contact. The subject of Pre-history would be another large article dealing more with anthropological-archaeological and historical linguistic theories than discuss the different cultures, which nolonger exist on Taiwan (Chipen, Beinan, Tapenkeng, Nanwang...etc.

We mention the colonial POV so we can continue to discuss the topic with the baggage out on the table. Thanks again for the attention to this article, really thoughtful comments. Much appreciatedMaowang 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I added 1 paragraph about prehistory.. didn't have time to smooth out the transition 'cause I got called away by real life... previously we had never considered a prehistory section for the reasons Maowang gave above (we've had a long series of email exchanges)... so I don't know whether to leave in what I just added or not.. I'll smooth it out &amp; we can discuss... Ling.Nut 02:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I believe those changes and some subsequent others took care of the main points. I agree that prehistory only needs a light coverage here, but it seemed necessary to 'round out' the picture to give the unfamiliar reader some background on origins and antecedants. What's there now should do fine.

I'd made a couple of other, mainly stylistic changes. Importantly, the content and scope is excellent and informative, and the verifiability at a high standard. The prose is largely there, perhaps a couple more tweaks to tighten in some places. I may have one or two more content clarifications to ask when I've finished looking, but in case I don't get back to this in time I'd be happy for my comments to be taken as being in support of this nomination, as I see all major, and many minor, bases and topics covered and cited.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 08:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The exact meaning of the last part of the sentence "Although the KMT continued to hold the reins of power for another decade under President Lee Teng-hui, they did so as an elected government rather than a ruling power that had supported many of the bills that had been promoted by Aboriginal groups." is not clear to me. Does it mean that the KMT supported bills by the aboriginal groups back when it was a ruling power? or that it did so as an elected government? I suspect that it is the latter, but that is definately not what it currently says. Rusty Cashman 01:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Classic run-on sentance. With so many nested clasues, it is hard to follow.  I still support this article, but maybe rephrasing the sentance into 2 or 3, like:
 * The KMT continued to hold the reins of power for another decade under President Lee Teng-hui. However, they did so as an elected government, rather than as a ruling power.  This elected KMT government supported many of the bills that had been promoted by Aboriginal groups..
 * ...is appropriate. In general, a sentance should only try to express one idea.  When you nest ideas inside of other ideas inside of yet more ideas, it is hard to parse the sentance for its real meaning.  If a sentance has more than one connecting phrase like "that" or "which" or "rather than" it is VERY hard to figure out the relationship between the clauses.  Also, if the antecedant of a pronoun is not immediately preceding the pronoun, it is best to use the proper noun rather than the pronoun.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  18:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Support - Although I would like to see consistent use of tags. I would like to help out on it, and will ask for the nominator's opinion. User:AQu01rius 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the sentenceLing.Nut 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: The standard (or convention) here on Wikipedia seems to prefer footnotes ("ref" tags) over Harvard referencing system. I am strongly in favor of footnoting references. --Jiang 13:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply Harvard is equally viable as per WP:CITE. Thanks for your suggestion, although I regret that it will be declined. Ling.Nut 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - This is one of the more comprehensive and informative articles I have ever come accross. It is rather long but it is well organized enough that it is still easy to find what you are looking for. It could be broken into two parts (contemporary and historical), but I think right now both these areas are well enought integrated and mutually supportive enough that that might not be the best thing to do. One more comment. Several comments have suggested switching to footnote references. In general I prefer them too, but this is one of the few articles that makes good use of informational footnotes, and I think mixing a few good informational footnotes with dozens of footnotes that are nothing more than citations would be a bad idea. Rusty Cashman 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - This article is informative and accurate as there are lots of sources. I think it meets the FA criteria.--Jerrypp772000 00:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a tendency to omit repetitions of key grammatical words that appear early in a sentence, and that readers would find easier if included, as with "to" above. "Taiwan's Austronesian speakers were formerly distributed over much of the island's rugged central mountain range and were concentrated in villages along the alluvial plains." And more. Fresh eyes required. Tony 01:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose—Criterion 1a. Please weed out the redundant wording throughout. Here are examples from the top.
 * "The Taiwanese Aborigines are Austronesian peoples, with linguistic and genetic ties to other Austronesian groups such as peoples of the Philippines, and possibly also to some Melanesian groups.
 * " Today, the bulk of the contemporary Taiwanese Aborigine population reside ..."
 * "The total population of Aborigines on Taiwan is around 458,000 as of January 2006, (CIP 2006) which is approximately 2% of Taiwan's population."
 * "at least ten are extinct, another five are moribund (Zeitoun & Yu 2005:167) and several others are to some degree endangered"
 * Ungainly repetition: "As a result of these intercultural dynamics, as well as more dispassionate economic processes, many of these tribes have been linguistically and culturally assimilated. The result has been".

Tony1,

I have made some changes per your comments.Thanks!Maowang 08:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I also made more than a few wording changes to clarify the text in early sections of the article. I believe the earlier sections had more of the sort of problems that Tony1 described, because they were more of a summary nature. Later sections seem more straightforward. We would of course appreciate any extra eyes or further instances of redundant wording and lack of clarity. I'll continue to look... Thanks for your contributions... Ling.Nut 21:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Further comment—The writing hasn't been improved sufficiently to meet the "professional" requirement.
 * "Plains, Mountains and Tribal definitions"—MoS says don't use title case. There are other instances, not only in titles (Barbarian Big Rent).
 * For this subject, most scholars prefer title case to put these groups on par with Dutch, Mainlanders, Han, Hakka etc. See comments in Talk:(Raw and Cooked).


 * Why is the text cluttered with full references that spatter blue everywhere (without, BTW, en dashes for page ranges)? For example, "The "displacement scenario" is more likely rooted in the older customs of many plains groups to withdraw into the foothills during headhunting season or when threatened by a neighboring village as observed by the Dutch during their punitive campaign of Mattou in 1636 when the bulk of the village retreated to Tevoraan (Blusse & Everts 2000:11-12; Shepherd 1993:1-6; Shepherd 1995:66-72)." It's too long a sentence anyway. And are the quotes really necessary around "displacement scenario" and similar terms?
 * Many of the multiple citations act in a sentence with multiple sources for stability, or for a sentence which compounds information from multiple sources into a single sentence.


 * "During the European period (1623-1662) soldiers and traders representing ...". Try this: "During the European period (1623–62) soldiers and traders representing ...". Is that easier to read?
 * "a custom of sexual division of labor"—Bit awkward grammatically. How about "a custom allocating labor on the basis of sex"?
 * Using terms familiar for the topic.


 * "The plains people hunted herds of spotted deer and muntjak as well as conducted light millet farming." Ungrammatical ("conducting" is required). But why not just "and conducted"?

It's a good article, and thus worth polishing. Can someone go through the whole article? Tony 03:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.