Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chinese characters/archive1

Chinese characters

Chinese characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 10 January 2025, 12:20 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.

• Featured article candidates/Chinese characters/archive1

Nominator(s): Remsense ‥ 论 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a writing system (really, a set of systems) used continuously in some form for over three millennia, facilitating some of the most ramified literary culture and communications technologies in human history. While all writing we know of has its origins in symbols that represent units of meaning instead of units of sound, Chinese characters are the only such symbols that are still used; all other systems have been replaced with fundamentally phonetic writing. To those used to the latter, they represent evidence of how differently writing can function. Really, I have little idea if I'm writing this blurb correctly, so if it's not helpful please let me know. Remsense ‥ 论 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Generalissima

One hell of a first FA, Remsense! Image licensing first up, and I'll look over prose later

• File:Hanzi.svg good
• File:Evo-rì.svg good
• File:Evo-shān.svg good
• File:Evo-xiàng.svg good
• File:Compound Chinese character demonstration with 好.webm good
• File:Comparative evolution of Cuneiform, Egyptian and Chinese characters.svg good
• (all the individual character files good im not listing all of those)
• File:Shang dynasty inscribed scapula.jpg good
• File:Shi Qiang pan.jpg good
• File:姓解 Digidepo 1287529 00000014(2) (cropped).jpg good
• File:永-order.webm good
• File:噹噹茶餐廳2021年7月初的午餐餐牌-tweaked.jpg good
• File:This Letter written by Mi Fei.jpg good
• File:監獄體樣本.svg good
• File:Chineseprimer3.png good
• File:Tale of Kieu parallel text.svg good
• File:SecretHistoryMongols1908.jpg good
• File:Chenzihmyon typefaces.svg good
• File:ROC24 SC1.jpg needs a United States PD tag (PD-1996 works)
• File:CJK 次 glyph variants.svg good

Alright, just the one to fix for images Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

I've added commons:Template:PD-1996 to commons:File:ROC24 SC1.jpg, that's the one required fix right? Remsense ‥ 论 01:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Yup! Support on images then. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Also, the only place I could see to add an image would be a page from the Shuowen Jiezi when you describe it - I feel that'd be useful for understanding their traditional classification Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've been mulling over this, and I think the issue is a scan of a definition wouldn't do much more for readers than show the visual layout. I was thinking maybe to use a quote box to provide a translated and annotated definition instead? Curious what you and others think of this. Remsense ‥ 论 07:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Arcticocean

This is a review of prose and writing from section to section, skipping some sections. For this Westerner with no knowledge of other writing systems, this was an excellent treatment of the subject.

• Lead: Effective as a mini-treatment of the whole subject. The prose flows well. Technical language is only used where necessary and to convey a meaning that could not otherwise be expressed. All jargon has been wikilinked.
• Development: Good, especially where the writing deploys concepts in one paragraph (e.g. proto-writing) and then incorporates that into subsequent paragraphs. This style of prose carries the reader along well and is highly engaging. The one improvement needed was an unexplained use of the term 'encode', which makes it slightly difficult to follow the next few sentences.
• Classification: This is a long and highly technical section. The prose is good throughout, but the structure or hierarchy of the section becomes clear only after the reading. Clearer signposting (outlining what you are about to deal with at the outset) could make it easier not to lose the reader.
• History:
  • In general, I prefer belief systems to be described in English's equivalent of the inferential mood. Thus Wikipedia would say "God is said to have rested on the seventh day", not "God rested on the seventh day". The problem arises with On the day that these first characters were created … be cheated. While I appreciate that the immediately preceding sentence makes the context clear, please consider amending.
  • Otherwise good.
• Structure: The prose here is particularly good, and the images and media are deployed to good effect.
• Reform and standardisation: Good.

You should be very proud of this work. arcticocean ■ 12:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much both for the kind words and the points of critique. I think you're totally right about § Classification, and I'm thinking about what I can do. As regards the mood thing, it is something I'm of two minds about. Broadly, I dislike the idea of accidentally editorializing or coming off as unduly cynical or reductive with what are (often) meant to be poetic or otherwise non-literal narratives. It can feel a bit like putting unnecessary scare quotes around words, I suppose? My rule has always been to trust the reader understands the narratological context, but your critique is one I appreciate and haven't heard expressed this way before. Remsense ‥ 论 12:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)