Talk:Chinese classifier/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi, I will be reviewing this article in the next day or two. Cheers, Ricardiana (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ricardiana. My main concern is keeping the article understandable and accessible to lay readers, so if you come across any parts that are confusing then please do point them out. I look forward to hearing your comments, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have studied a little Mandarin, but only a little, so I make a good lay reader. Ricardiana (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 1: well-written

Well-written overall. As someone who knows little about this kind of thing, though, there are the moments in the text that gave me pause or that I had to stop to think about:

• 我的车 (wǒ-de chē, me-possessive car, "my car"). For whatever reason "me-possessive" really threw me off, I think b/c it looks like it's going to modify car, but doesn't. Could you do "me + possessive", or something like that?
  • Hm, I'm not sure what you mean. You mean the de looks like it's going to modify che? Changing it to "me + possessive" might help, but then I think it would be inconsistent with the glosses elsewhere in the article. I'll have to brainstorm a little.... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, you're right; it is consistent with the rest of the article, it just threw me off. Keep it, I guess; it's not the end of the world that I had to think about it for a moment. Ricardiana (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• and the Chinese term 量词 itself, which is used like "measure word" in everyday speech, translates as "measuring word" Could you remind us of the pinyin here? For those who can't call up the sound of a character, having the pinyin is very helpful. I am used to reading aloud in my head, and unfamiliar characters (i.e., most of them) disorient me for that reason.
  • Good catch; I've added it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• even if they are used as nouns they are not preceded by classifiers of their own I think this would read better if flipped: "they are not ... even if"
  • I agree; done. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• *一大个人 yí dà ge rén, intended meaning "a big person", is never said) I think this would read better as "intended to mean"
  • Yeah, that does sound better. Changed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• The distinction between classifiers and massifiers is often fuzzy, however, and some researchers have suggested that classifiers and massifiers may not be so fundamentally different, but rather are just two extremes on a continuum, and that actual words may not be one hundred percent classifier or massifier but may fall somewhere in between There are several buts and ands in this sentence - that doesn't have to be a problem, but when the reader is working to keep up with unfamiliar grammar, it makes things harder. Could you break it up somehow?
  • I tried out this...is it an improvement? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• the classifier 盘 (traditional: 盤) pán for games of chess comes from 盘子 (盤子) Again, the pinyin would be helpful here. There are a few more instances in the article of characters not followed by pinyin - I think in all cases you only leave out the pinyin after having mentioned the character several times with the pinyin, but I don't learn new characters that fast! (This gives you some idea of how little Chinese I know....)
  • added pinyin for 盘子; will have to go through and try to track down the other spots that still need pinyin. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, I think I got them all (diff). I left the pinyin off in instances where the same word was repeated in consecutive sentences, in attempt to keep the clutter down. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• In the section on "Categories vs. prototypes", the first para. lacks any citation. Could you add one, or a footnote? (This doesn't really have anything to do with C1, but I thought I'd throw it in, esp. if you have any interest in taking this to FAC at any point.)
  • That was somewhat intentional; the paragraph didn't originally exist, and as I was organizing that section I added it as sort of an intro/summary/preview of the section. I think most of that paragraph is broad enough that it's not really cite-able (since the citations later in the section should back up all the information), although the first sentence could be cited without any trouble. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I see; well, add that cite. Could you maybe add a footnote stating that this view is held by such-and-such authorities? Ricardiana (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Do you mean that each view is held by such-and-such authority, or that the idea of dividing the views into "classical" and "prototypical" is held by such-and-such? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Added. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• I was a little confused by this: for example, the classifier 匹 pī used for horses is meaningless today, but in Classical Chinese may have had something to do with a "team of two horses",[34] a pair of horse skeletons,[35], or the pairing between man and horse. Why do scholars think this? Especially the skeleton part? Are they just guessing?
  • I'm not sure, they all just sort of say matter-of-factly "it meant this". More specifically, the "pairing between man and horse" thing is from Liu's 1965 book and he doesn't technically claim it meant that, but that its meaning "originated from" that, so it might still be amenable to the others...I think the most likely scenario is that all these definitions are accurate but reflect different uses in different time periods. That would not be surprising, given how much these classifiers' meanings change throughout the years (I don't think I said a whole lot about that in the article, but there are several historical articles that pick certain classifiers and go through all their meanings throughout the years, it's pretty crazy. 个 originally had something to do with bamboo, and then arrows, and then upright things in general, before it became the "general" classifier...somewhere in that time it also was the classifier for fruits for a little while.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Interesting. What a mess.... Maybe a footnote would be helpful here, giving an explanation along the lines of what you just gave me? Ricardiana (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I think that should be doable. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Note added. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• N1 - Num — N1 I found myself wondering why you used a hyphen and an endash here (or is it an emdash? My eyesight is poor).
  • Looks like an error left over from this automated edit. I've fixed it, and will keep my eye out for any other similar problems. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Whew, that's it, I think. Ricardiana (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 2: factually accurate and verifiable

Very well-done here - comprehensive and with judicious use of footnotes as well as citations. Ricardiana (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 3: broad in its coverage

Yes. Ricardiana (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 4: neutral

Good here. Ricardiana (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 5: stable

Good here. Ricardiana (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 6: illustrated, if possible, by images

Well-chosen images help to illustrate an article difficult of illustration (nicely-chosen quote-boxes, as well). Ricardiana (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad they worked out. The Tai quote I chose because I think it's still, 15 years later, the clearest and concisest explanation of the difference between classifiers and massifiers....they Peyraube quote I chose just because I thought it was cute, and it helps break up the text. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm off to bed, so if you have any further comments I will have to address them in the morning. By the way, thank you for doing this review; it's a difficult and dry subject, so I appreciate your patience in helping out with it. And, as a learner of Chinese, hopefully you found it educational as well! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I actually did find it very educational, and will be returning to it as a reference whenever I need a brush-up on classifiers in the future. Ricardiana (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Passes GA

Thanks, Rjanag, for addressing all my concerns so promptly and thoroughly. I took a look at all the changes you made and they look great. I'm passing this as a GA now, and thanks for writing such a thorough and lucid article on a difficult subject! Ricardiana (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! It's always great to get a new set of eyes in to help improve the article. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)