Talk:Tian Feng (magazine)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Stedil (talk · contribs) 02:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Greetings! I will review this article. Stedil (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I don't see anything in the guide to layout that seems to require every citation be formatted exactly the same way, so I'm assuming it's okay that not all works cited are in the 'works cited' section?
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Could not check the foreign-language sources but accept as good faith; other sources all look reliable. Multiple random checks of assertions in sourcing show careful attention to detail by author.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I have no expertise in this subject but accept as good faith
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	appears to be neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Can't assess foreign-language descriptions, but the images appear to comply
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Caption for portrait would make a good DYK hook
	7. Overall assessment.

Reviewer Comments

• Wu was a proponent of the social gospel as well as a Chinese patriot. Citation needed. What exactly is a "Chinese Patriot?"
  •  Done Removed. It was added by somebody else and I'm not interesting in guessing what to cite.
• Tian Feng was founded in February 1945 as a weekly liberal magazine published by the YMCA This is too close to what's written in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Chinese Culture. The version in the lead is slightly better, but could probably also be rewritten. Try reading how multiple sources describe its founding, then summarize all of them in a unique way. Perhaps a little more detail would help as well: how, exactly, was the material "liberal?" Was there a particular viewpoint the magazine was expressing originally?
  •  Done Will have to rephrase. "Liberal" here refers to Liberal Christianity, which I could make explicit.
• published some of his most important theological articles This is a direct quote of the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Chinese Culture. Please rephrase. Again, perhaps more detail would help - what kinds of theological articles? What did he write about that was so important?
  •  Done

More on the way. Stedil (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for conducting this review, Stedil. The time is not super convenient for me so I might not respond swiftly, so bear with me. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I'm also busy at the moment. Probably will have some more comments ready later in the week. Stedil (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments 2

• leading Christian magazine in the country. This statement isn't neutral. Perhaps change "leading" to "most widely circulated."
  •  Done
• The Public Domain tag for the image of Y.T. Wu states that the image needs a Public Domain tag from both China and the United States in order for the image to be on Commons. Would Template:PD-1996 apply in this case?
  •  Done Yes, PD-1996 applies (it is a photographic work, 1937+50=1987, and there is no indication of compliance with US copyright formalities or US publication within 30 days).
• By 1951, the tables had turned and Wu had to make a public confession in the magazine for not having supported the communists enough This sentence has some editorializing that isn't necessary. Just state the facts. I would remove "the tables had turned" and the italic emphasis of the word "not."
  •  Done Agreed
• but were purged nonetheless What is meant by "purged?" Consider revising this entire sentence, as it is quite choppy with all of the commas.
  •  Done I'll have to take a closer look at this. "Purged" is what the cited source says. It probably means different bad things happened to different people. It looks like Isaac Wu, who is referred to here as an example, was imprisoned. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

To be continued... Stedil (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Some updates implemented, but I'm still researching the specifics. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Stedil: I believe I've addressed all the concerns now. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

New reviewer requested

Stedil has not edited on Wikipedia since January 8, over two months ago, and nominator Finnusertop has requested a new reviewer at WT:GAN. Making this request here, and putting a "second opinion" status on the nomination, in the hopes that it attracts a new reviewer who can complete this review. Thanks for anyone who takes this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I'd be willing to complete this review. It's been a minute since I participated in GA, so Finnusertop if you'd rather not deal with someone whose hand you might have to hold, no worries at all! I was just looking for an article that interested me, and I've done some work on journalists. valereee (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be happy if you completed the review, valereee! Actually, I think it's the "magazines and print journalism" category that has made all other reviewers fall asleep so far. I've been waiting for this review to happen for almost a full year now... not bitter at all ;) ... But in all seriousness, don't hesitate to ask if there's something on your mind. I have some experience on both sides of GA reviews. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Finnusertop, great, I'll get started. I'll be unfortunately a bit slow as I'll be checking instructions as I go, but I'll keep plugging at it. --valereee (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

From valereee

Looking at writing first, by sections:

Lead:

I wasn’t sure what ‘became increasingly difficult’ meant:

At the height of the Cultural Revolution, writing on theology became increasingly difficult, and the magazine was discontinued in 1964.

…and the pertinent section doesn’t clarify it for me:

With the mounting ultra-leftist tendencies that would ultimately lead to the Cultural Revolution, Christian activities became constrained. Although Tian Feng continued publication for the time being, publication of theological articles became impossible in 1959.

I think it’s saying that the government cracked down on religion to the point that the paper could no longer publish theological articles?

 Question: The source cited in the relevant portion of the article body says this: "With the growing influence of leftism leading up to the Cultural Revolution, however, the theological fermentation at the grass roots came to a halt. The Nanjing Seminary Journal ceased publication in 1957, after only seven issues had been released, and there were no more theological discussions in Tian Feng after 1959." (Wickeri 2011, p. 273). While you're essentially correct, I'd be careful to embrace your exact words ("the government cracked down") because my understanding of the Cultural Revolution is that it wasn't always under government control, and the government didn't work as one unit (it was Mao vs. the others). Consequentially, the "the growing influence of leftism leading up to the Cultural Revolution" could be coming from many sides. Thoughts? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

History:

This progression seems pretty repetitive:

Some of Wu's most important theological articles were published in the journal,[4][7] such as "The Present Day Tragedy of Christianity".[8] "The Present Day Tragedy of Christianity"[edit | edit source] In Easter of 1948, Wu published an article called "The Present Day Tragedy of Christianity".

 Done I've condensed it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Organ:

Wasn’t sure what this meant:

calling for the relationship of foreign missionaries and foreign governments to be exposed.

Relationship between the missionaries and their governments? As in the government believe they were spies or propagandists?

 Done I've added a bit about this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The names mentioned in this section – should we explain who they were?

 Done Added. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Watchman Nee had long been persecuted (by the government/party?)

 Done Both, but the source specifically talks about a prison sentence, so I've specified the government here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The final paragraph of this section seems out of chronological order – would moving it into the above paragraph clarify the above concerns?

 Done That's a very good idea. Done! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I made a few copyedits, please check to make sure I haven't introduced error! --valereee (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Finnusertop I'm finished except for that listed above! Ping me when you get through to make sure I don't miss it going by on my watchlist! --valereee (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: I've fixed most of these, please check. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Finnusertop, take a look at the changes I made, which maybe will solve the issue with the 'no longer publishing theological articles' parts. valereee (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, valereee, I think these changes are good. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Finnusertop, great! I've asked one of the editors listed at GA mentors to take a look to check my work, so let's keep our fingers crossed! :D --valereee (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hm, I see that editor hasn't edited in six weeks...I'll shoot them an email to make sure they see the request, and if they don't answer in the next day or so I'll ask someone else. valereee (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: I was under the impression that you can complete the review by yourself. @BlueMoonset: how is it? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Finnusertop, oh, yes, I can -- I just wanted someone to check my work, as it's been a while since I've participated in a GA. ETA: Hm, I emailed that editor on the 15th and haven't heard back; I think we can assume they won't be able to help. valereee (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have time to do the sort of full check that you're looking for. The GA nominee template on the talk page does have a "second opinion" status—I think it's the one that attracted valereee here in the first place, and it might attract someone, or you could ask another reviewer you know from the old days, or post the request as an add-on from the original request for a new reviewer on the WT:GAN page. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I'm pretty confident of everything except the prose (which feels dense to me and a bit stilted in places, but I think it's possible that's because a lot of what's being asserted has to be worded pretty carefully to avoid overinterpreting what the sources are saying without causing some other problem) and the reference formatting. I'll go back to the mentors page and see if I can find someone, thanks! valereee (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: I'll be happy to try and fix the prose if you identify the problem bits. In order to pass, the article needs to pass every criteria, and, for the time being you're the only reviewer I'm working with. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Finnusertop, I think it's possible that the prose issues I'm seeing are because a lot of what's being asserted has to be worded pretty carefully to avoid overinterpreting what the sources are saying without causing some other problem. I've tried to come up with solutions, but when I go to check a particular reference so I can figure out how to do that, I see exactly why you chose that particular wording. For instance, I just found myself changing "published in the Easter of 1948" to "published around Easter of 1948" (source says "during the Easter") and I'm not sure "around Easter" is any better; I feel like I might just have made the language more vague. But "in the Easter" made me wonder if a word was missing (was it published in the Easter edition?) and the original "during the Easter" just doesn't sound like idiomatic English.

The references formatting is a combination of styles, one of which I'm not used to dealing with, and from the GA review instructions I wasn't sure whether formatting needed to be consistent. That is, I can see that it's fine to have several sections for the sourcing, but some of these sources are in one and not the other and vice versa.

So it's not that I believe any further changes need to be made; as far as I am capable of assessing, the article is good to go. It's that on these two issues, I'd like to get an experienced editor's agreement. valereee (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I've just left a request on an experienced GA mentor's talk page. They last edited yesterday, so with any luck they'll see it soon. valereee (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

valereee, it might be helpful to read WP:GANOT, which helpfully goes over the GA criteria and how they apply... and can be misapplied. For GA, referencing can apparently be different styles, as long as you can figure out what the source is from the reference. (FA is far more strict.) For prose, it needs to be clear and concise, so if there's something that isn't clear or isn't concise, then it should be revised so it is. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, thank you, that's really helpful! I hadn't seen that before. I think from that, it's clear the reference formatting isn't an issue. valereee (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

From Ritchie333

I've been asked to take a look at this review. I think good work has been done so far, but I have some more comments. However, these are based more on what I believe meets the relevant parts of the good article criteria. I'm generally not a fan of refusing to do things just because they're not in the GA criteria, unless they would take an unnecessary amount of time. For example, expanding an area of an article lacking in source material to hand could be excused, formatting a sentence that isn't in the GA criteria but makes sense to do anyway should just be done unless there are valid objections to doing so. Anyway, some comments:

• "It sought to proliferate the views of the newly founded TSPM" - A magazine's contents are an abstract entity and cannot proliferate views

• The "Format" section has every paragraph bar one starting "Tian Feng". This repetition makes the prose more difficult to parse, and is generally avoided in GA-class articles and above. Can you rework this?

• I don't like the position of the images - they're all squashed down the bottom of the article. Although not (AFAIK) part of the GA criteria, this really ought to be fixed.

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Ritchie333, for these suggestions and the edits you've made to the article.

• I'm not sure what the right word would be here. Disseminate? And isn't the "it" here the magazine?

Something like "It contained (or intended to contain) views of the newly founded TSPM" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Done now, Ritchie333. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Done
• This is very much dependent on both personal taste and screen resolution. It seems fine on my monitor, so I can't really figure out where you want them moved. Can I ask you to move them wherever you want? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333, oh, Iike that photo moved left! --valereee (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333, are you satisfied that the article is good to go? --valereee (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think my issues have been resolved. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! And thank you, Finnusertop, for your work and your willingness to deal with multiple people! I know this has been a very long process for you. --valereee (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)