Wikipedia:Peer review/Chinese characters/archive1

Chinese characters

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit it as my first FAC. This is a multifaceted subject with diverse challenges in writing a stellar encyclopedia article for a general English language audience. The subject is deeply important to me, and it's been really rewarding trying to weave concepts together and split them apart, but I think I'm approaching the limits of my own brain to think new thoughts about it on its own.

I am particularly interested in how the article reads to people who have a minimum of exposure to the subject—people who have never even heard a word of spoken Chinese somehow. People who have never seen a passer-by's unfortunate tattoo. I want my explanations of concepts from zero to be useful for everybody. How clear are the explanations of cultural, historical, academic, and technical terms to you? Do I explain everything in the right order? I would also like to make the subject burn with interest for some folks out there like reading about it has done for me.

I also crave any and all observations from those on the other end of the spectrum, especially regarding potential scope hurdles—how might we get from broad to comprehensive coverage without lurching above 10k words, the arbitrary upper limit I've set for myself? At what point are we off-topic when discussing aspects of spoken rather than specifically written language? Is this article something of a superset of Written Chinese, or should it be rebalanced as to better reflect the heterogenous peoples involved over time? How much space should we devote to aspects that are specific to particular languages or historical periods? Should we create even more sub-articles to cram into Category:Chinese characters? Can I figure out how to make cooler graphics or tables? Anything and everything to make this the best article of its kind.

祝福你们都！ Remsense诉 19:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles listed there. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'd be happy to! Thank you for the nudge. Remsense诉 03:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

Ping me if I don't get to this in a week. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Just wanted to bump in and ping you.^ Arconning (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I promise I'll get to this soon. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries in the slightest! While I would very much like to hear your insights, it's not like I've chipped in yet at the Genghis Khan FAC like I've promised... Remsense诉 14:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)On a quick glance, some points of pedantry:

Reference formats should be standardised.
Some captions are quite lengthy—try and keep MOS:CAPTION ("should be succinct") in mind. If they say things that aren't in the article, or if it's not immediately clear what references support the caption, citations should be added (e.g. File:Variants_of_Kangxi_radical_213_'turtle'.svg) in "Variant characters".
I know that I'm probably the only editor or reader who would pick up on this, but Hung 1951 is quite long and involved, so specific page numbers would be helpful.
It might just be my screen, but there seems to be a little MOS:SANDWICHing at the start of the "Methods of writing" section.
In the "Vietnamese" section:
- Paragraph is a little long, might want to split.
- Is the image WP:OR? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formats should be standardised

Oh, how so? I've spent a ton of time preening the references in the article, and I'm not sure which aspect you could be referring to.

Some citations use ref tags, others sfns, and I'm not entirely sure why there's a division.

Hung 1951

Page 481 is specifically cited, I think?

Oh yes, sorry. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've finally knuckled down and sorted the bib completely (wow!) All books and journal articles are in the works cited, save for the primary sources which have been given their own section. Thoughts? Remsense诉 18:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remsense诉 14:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to come (I promise). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]