Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Xinxiu bencao/1

Xinxiu bencao

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Xinxiu_bencao/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: No consensus. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Far from covering all major aspects of the topic. Chinaknowledge, which is based on Chinese language secondary sources, contains several paragraphs of information about the contents of the book, while the article only has two sentences. The article says that the book is considered lost in China, even though Chinaknowledge makes clear that large sections of the book survive and even lists modern editions of the text. Kzyx (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Good thing they list their sources so we can hopefully check those out. This also makes me realise that I think there must be more sources for this work that are in Mandarin, which I unfortunately do not speak; but if we find the sources hopefully there would be Mandarin-speaking Wikipedians willing to help translate/factcheck machine translations. ❧ LunaEatsTuna  (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 11:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's been a long while since I took a look at this but I would hesitate to call Chinaknowledge.de a reliable source, even though its information is ostensibly based on reliable-looking Chinese sources. Notwithstanding the fact that I would really love to incorporate info from Chinese-language sources, I believe this article already covers virtually everything that can be found in the English-language scholarship; I would challenge anyone to contradict me. Claims such as the full text being lost (which I think you're insinuating to be inaccurate) are not based on my word (WP:OR), but the RSes cited. In any case, thanks for helping to improve the article but I respectfully submit that this GAR is a tad premature. Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way, I believe you meant to link here instead. Frankly I do not see that much of a significant difference between the info listed there and in our article. There is a distinction between "comprehensive" (in fact, just "broad in coverage" suffices for GA purposes...) and "exhaustive"... For instance, I'm not quite sure our readers really need to know about every single modern print of the fragments by the Keji weisheng press, the Shanghai keji press, or the Shanghai guji Press, etc. KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 12:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did mean that link. I didn't actually want to cite Chinaknowledge (which is written by a specialist in Chinese history) in the article and it's definitely not necessary to actually list modern editions. I was just pointing out that there is a lot of information yet to be added. And yes, the statement that the full text is lost is inaccurate: the Encyclopedia of China states that 20 juan survive, and those 20 juan can be found on ctext.org. There are also very many academic papers in Chinese whose main topic is the Xinxiu bencao :. In any case, the article's five paragraphs are woefully inaccurate for a clearly important text in the history of Chinese medicine. Kzyx (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please address my point that "this article already covers virtually everything that can be found in the English-language scholarship"... It's not reasonable to expect anything here to incorporate information from the "very many academic papers in Chinese", as much as I would like for this to be the case (and notwithstanding the fact that this topic is indeed Chinese-related)... The claim, for instance, that the full text is lost is made in one of the RSes and faithfully reported in this article. Per WP:OR, it is not in within our purview to contradict that. FWIW, the fact that 20 juan survive (which you are more than welcome to add) is not mutually exclusive with the fact that the full text (comprising who knows how many juan) no longer survives.... Again, as far as the modern English-language scholarship is concerned, I do not think your assessment of "Woefully inaccurate" is at all fair. Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 16:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , per WP:RSUE English-language sources are only preferred over non-English ones when they are of equal quality. From what is saying, it seems like the Chinese-language source include huge amounts of relevant information, without which the article can't be said to cover the "main aspects" of the topic. I am thus of the view that unless the relevant material is added from the Chinese sources, this should be delisted. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @AirshipJungleman29 Kzyx is being hyperbolic with such claims as "woefully inaccurate" and I respectfully submit that you shouldn't simply be taking his word for it. His main gripe revolves around the "Contents" section and I believe that since we aren't a specialist encyclopedia there's really no need to go into too much detail (or any at all) regarding the hundreds of various medicines listed in the text, apart from the fact that there are 850ish of them. Moreover, "the 'broad in its coverage' criterion is significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." Short of gesturing towards a list of papers, Kzyx also has not specified what relevant info is so crucially missing from the article. Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 05:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)