Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chinese inventions


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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:11, 5 July 2008.

List of Chinese inventions
This list has seen huge improvement since I started expanding it last week, and just today added colored tables for each Chinese invention listed alphabetically. It has a sufficient lead section and picture, two small picture galleries, and a comprehensive list of items that are fully described with prose and heavily cited ( 154 184 inline citations as of now). Although there were various complaints in the past as seen on the talk page, this is due to the poor amount of references provided that I have remedied and drastically improved. I think it is ready for featured status.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 21:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments A few questions that pop up right away: why is all of this in table-format? Everything is only one column, so why not just do it with straight prose? And a related question (which may be irrelevant depending on your response to the first), why are the tables colored? That doesn't seem to serve any functional purpose to me. Last question is, why so few images? An image of each invention along the right side of the screen would be great. Drewcifer (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Drew regarding the table format. It gives the article a much neater look, but I think the information can be conveyed with by using headers or semi-colons. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - it would be preferable just to have level three headings under "Four Great Inventions" and "Other inventions". No real reason to have tables when there's only one column. And especially for an article like this, the more images the better, and it will be easier to place them if you have sections. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 21:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think buletted paragraphs is the best format myself (otherwise it feels like you just have disjointed paragraphs with randomly bolded words). Circeus (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Really guys? You don't like the tables? Ok, I'll get rid of them for sub-section headings instead, but I just want to say that by adding all of those tables, I wasted a good two hours of my life! Lol.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 23:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just deleted the tables and I am now disbursing the gallery images throughout the article. I intend to add many more pictures as suggested.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 00:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that bullets are probably the best format, but is there any way of making them appear in the contents? - that is currently very short and I think it needs to include the 'other inventions'. Perhaps that section could be split into a few categories so you see more links in the TOC. Otherwise fantastic article with lots of pictures and s. - tholly  --Turnip-- 19:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought about creating sub-sections under the "Other inventions" section, but I don't know how to classify everything under certain sub-sections. Perhaps ancient, medieval, and modern? Or, since it is in alphabetical order, I could create sub-sections by letters? Like "A, B, C, D," etc. etc.? Or would that be a bit too much? Along with the fact that not every letter in the alphabet will be represented. I would like to hear other suggestions-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 19:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmmmmm... I think that "A, B, C..." would be going too far. I don't know how well they would split into the different categories but that would probably be best, with the listed alphabetically in each section. - tholly  --Turnip-- 20:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Just see above comment. - tholly  --Turnip-- 19:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The introduction definitely needs to be expanded. There is so much content but so little summary or explanation in the lead to prepare the reader for the list? For instance, why did the Chinese invent these items, etc. Gary King ( talk ) 04:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You want to include information on why the Chinese invented these items? You mean like explaining every practical use of cast iron? Dear God, I hope not! Lol. I will, however, see what I can do about expanding the lead.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 04:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No; just talk about why they invented these items in general. For instance, perhaps the geographical location of China or their way of life caused them to invent these things? Gary King ( talk ) 05:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great suggestions. That will entail more research, but I am up for the challenge, sir.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 05:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there is nothing immediatley available on the web which tackles this rather profound question, but I will keep looking.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 17:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely you have something available in print, considering the entire article is referenced to print material? :) Gary King ( talk ) 05:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But I don't have Needham's Volume 7, Part 2, which would have covered this subject in detail! A shame I never considered buying that volume; my local library does not carry it.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 07:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support This looks good now. Gary King ( talk ) 16:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think that simply naming every single invention in the lead is a cop-out to expanding the lead. Why not tell the reader what the first recorded invention is, and when for example? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A cop-out? Who said I was done expanding the lead? Why is listing what is found in the article a "cop-out"? I completely disagree. Sure, I would love to tell the reader what the very first recorded invention in China was, if I could find such a thing. However, that is not what is being listed in this article. What is being listed in this article are inventions that first appeared in China. The very first recorded invention of China could very well be an invention thought of and invented somewhere else in the world beforehand, you know, in civilizations like Sumeria, ancient Egypt, Indus Valley, Minoa, etc. etc.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 19:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To appease you somewhat, I have included information on Neolithic China in the introduction. Does that satisfy you?-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 20:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, keep in mind that this is not a detailed "History of Technology in China" article, but a simple list of Chinese inventions with some brief explanations of each item. Big difference there.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 20:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but look at any other Featured list, and point out one that lists every entry in the LS. Most just pick a handful to discuss. The third paragraph improves the LS alot though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Plus lots more. TONY  (talk)  09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose—Cr 1. Here are a few examples of why the whole page needs copy-editing.
 * "The civilization of China"—unidiomatic: "Chinese civilization".
 * Second sentence: semicolon should be colon.
 * "The list below contains these above mentioned items and others which appeared in China first."—Below/above, ouch. Above-mentioned is hyphenated, but avoid it. The status of "first" is unclear.
 * "(202 BC–220 AD)"—Read MOS on en-dash spacing.
 * The column width of the refs is very small and makes it hard to read.


 * Response:
 * It has been changed simply to "China" and nothing else.
 * Already changed to a colon.
 * That sentence has been changed.
 * I see on WP:MOS what you're talking about now; I'll fix every one of those now.
 * The column width of references is merely a preference issue, and I have many featured articles where the refs are that size and no one found fault with them. You're opposing the article for that?
 * "Plus lots more" - Ok, could you list them?-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 19:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments - I can see a whole heap of work has gone in here so I'm not going to archive it yet, nor am I going to pass it - I have some comments and I'm prepared to keep the FLC open a while longer. I'll try to pick out some other specific examples of failures of Cr 1 and Cr 5 in particular.
 * Second para of lead is pure blue-link hell. Do you really need to list them all out in the lead when you're going to list them all out again in the list?  Why not pick two or three specifics, expand on them and then leave the list to do the rest of the work?
 * Personal choice but the remains of the crossbow image in the lead is pretty uninspiring. Why not one of the "four great" ones?
 * It's not mandated but I prefer to see citations in numerical order unless there is a really good reason why they're not, e.g. [35][36][37][38][33][17][39] just looks odd to me.
 * The 1/600 th looks really odd in my browser. Maybe just consider text?
 * "(202 BC – 220 AD) craftsman and engineer Ding Huan (fl. 180)" - is it just me or could that 180 be BC or AD?
 * Seismometer caption - clarify if it's AD or BC you're talking about.
 * Bray, Carlson, Lewis MJT, Simmons all have dashes in their references between page numbers instead of en-dash.
 * Several references missing ISBN numbers.
 * I think Tony's point about the use of three columns for the reflist (on browsers which support it) is fair enough. There have been a number of discussion recently about assumptions on min screen resolution and I think piping it to two columns would be better.  80% of the world (Internet explorer users) won't know the difference anyway.  Safari users (like Tony and I) will, and will appreciate it.


 * Response:
 * I scrapped that entire paragraph and wrote a new one on the significance of certain Chinese inventions, which I think reads and looks much better. There is now no excessive use of links and instead of listing everything to be found, I have converted that paragraph into readable prose.
 * Although it is entirely a preference issue of yours, I went ahead and changed the lead picture of the article to something a bit more enticing.
 * Citations which appear out of order (numerically) should not be an issue. Is this something that actually bothers you?
 * It looks odd? How so? It looks perfectly fine on my browser. I prefer fractions which show the numbers top-and-bottom, not side-to-side, but this is merely a preference issue and I wanted to show off my wiki skills a bit by making a fraction without resorting to the use of a simple slash.
 * I fixed Ding Huan's date to AD.
 * I fixed the seismometer's date to AD.
 * I added en dashes in those references as you suggested.
 * "Several references missing ISBN numbers" - Does this matter? Sure, it's good to include the ISBN number when you can, but having a few references which lack them is no grounds to oppose an article's candidacy for featured status (not saying you have, but you did admit your consideration of shutting this discussion down and archiving it).
 * I have fixed the references so that they appear larger. I hope that everyone is now happy (at least with this issue).-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 00:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - Lead section is much better now that list-paragraph is gone. Very informative. Meets criteria. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.