Talk:National Christian Council of China

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:National Christian Council of China/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 07:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I will review this.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Overview

1. Prose:

• No copvio.
• The article makes for an interesting read, but has some uncommon usage of idiom and some parts that are unlcear. Detailed review follows.
• There are many different organizations and committees mentioned in the History section. It is an absolute necessity to use some sort of chart to show who merged with who, who was disbanded, etc. Same holds for The Christian Manifesto section.
• I am uncertain whether it is useful to keep Leadership as a separate section. Perhaps better merge with the other sections, to see the interaction between history and leadership. After all, if sections get too large, you can split in chronological subsections.
• The purpose of the NCC is mentioned more clearly in the infobox than in the body of the text, if I am not mistaken.

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

2. MOS:

Looks perfect.

3. References layout: List of works cited is not alphabetical. No dead links.

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

4. Reliable sources: Yes.

5. Original research: None found.

6. Broadness: To check.

7. Focus: Yes.

8. Neutral: Yes.

9. Stable: article is stable.

10-11. Pics: Relevant. The tags at

• The 1910 World Missionary Conference,the Edinburgh Missionary Conference.jpg and

 Done. Replaced with File:1910 World Missionary Conference in session.jpg (it's actually quite cool: you can see the camera that took this photo in the other one, and vice-versa. The only difference is that I managed to find a pre-1923 US publication for this version). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Nice! It seems the chairman didn't like the cameramen very much, judging from him looking up...--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yu Rizhang.jpg are not completed though.

 Doing.... Sent a message to the uploader. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done I've added a PD-1996 license template to the image. -Zanhe (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Zanhe! I'm planning an AWB request for the rest of the images in the same Who's Who in China categories. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Detailed review per section

I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. Feel free to discuss any copyedit i have done, and if necessary revert.

History

• ... its inaugural chairman David Z. T. Yui sought to balance pressure from both nationalist and anti-nationalist groups, ... The NCC sided with the nationalist protesters ... Please explain why Yui changed his mind.

 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• ... unequal treaties ... Though a technical term, you need to use quotes for neutrality.

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• ... liberal leanings ... The word liberal means different things in different countries, even the US and Europe. I propose adding in the Mandarin term in brackets, and giving an example.

 Done. Here it refers specifically to liberal theology. I've wikilinked the term. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Even during the years of Nationalist China ... Please add period in brackets.

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Similarly, at times the government needed the NCC's support to make its initiatives effective. This seems to indicate a position of influence, which contradicts the first part of this paragraph.

 Done. I've opted to remove this sentence. Reading again in the source, it's specifically about some projects during the war, and does not lend itself to a generalization. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• The NCC quieted down its activities ... Why?

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• ...to have them back. To have the personnel back in office?

 Done Presumably. I've reworded it to be as close as possible to what the source says. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• In the midst of the transition period, the NCC spoke against corruption and social injustice, but considering the handover of all political affairs to the Communist Party of China (CPC), this was "too little too late". Please explain.

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• The NCC "sorely missed the leadership" ... Is Bayes quoting the NCC, or is he saying this himself?

 Done. Bays' opinion. I've expanded and attributed the quote. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Currently, the quote omits the object of the sentence, which is unusual. I have tried to improve on it, but i think it would be better if you add the full quote or at least add in the object of the sentence (that is, Yui and Jingyi).--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

"The Christian Manifesto"

• Instead, five progressive Christians ... So first the NCC was too liberal, now they are too conservative?
• ... became involved in the united front controlled by the CPC ... Who is the CPC?

The Communist Party of China. I've already expanded the acronym twice: its first occurrence in the lead and its first occurrence in article body. The latter is actually the last paragraph before this subsection begins. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you meant the CPCC and had omitted a letter.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• ... informing them about the imminent founding of the State Administration for Religious Affairs (SARA). What were the implications or consequences of this?

 Doing.... There's something about this in Wickeri 2011 p. 70 which I can't access in full. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I can access page 70, but this page doesn't mention the SARA. In fact, the entire book does not mention the State Administration for Religious Affairs, nor the abbreviation SARA for that matter. Perhaps you mean another source?

Farang Rak Tham, this source uses the name "Religious Affairs Bureau". It's the same organization. To be pedantic, I should probably use the name "Religious Affairs Division", which was what it was briefly called in this historical period. (See this source.)

It would be absolutely fantastic if you could improve this entry since you have fuller access to the source, or quote it here in more length. I only see from "There was no CPC office for dealing with religious affairs before 1949..." to "Historically, therefore, the united front has set the terms for PRC religious policy", but not what comes after that. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Since you have disabled Wiki email, I have uploaded scans of the pages you requested. You probably need to register for Dropbox to download the files. Here they are: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Wu also reported to the NCC ... To report may imply an employer-employee relationship. So Wu was working for the NCC now, not the CPCC?

I'll think of a better word.– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I went with "briefed" here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• ...had become part of a campaign to establish the TSPM Please explain first where this stands for.

 Doing.... Spelled out the name in full for starters. I'll also explain what the organization is. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

To be continued. Feel free to start editing...

"The Christian Manifesto", continued

Above there are two minor points left, both underlined. I am continuing the per-section review:

• ... "The Christian Manifesto" had become part of a campaign ...; ... a relatively small number of activists ... It isn't quite clear from this and the following paragraphs who promoted the manifesto. You might want to change several sentences from passive to active voice, and specify who did what, especially in the section about the manifesto.
• ... the road was open for both the inception of the TSPM and the success of the manifesto ... replace success by a more neutral word, such as acceptance or support ... by the Protestants.

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Leadership

As already suggested above, better to merge with the history section, as to provide context.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Broadness check

Most sources about the subject are not cited much on Google Scholar, and this it is hard to establish what is mainstream and what is not. I found this and this source stating that the NCC was founded by the China Continuation Committee, and that the NCC already was involved with promotion of the three-self principles in 1922. This should be mentioned in the article.

(I further found this, this, this and this source, which you might want to take a look at. Thomson also mentions some reform programs of the NCC, which you have not yet covered, and might consider later. These sources contain nothing essential for GA coverage, though.)--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Edited.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

I am putting the article on hold to give you some more time.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Farang Rak Tham, and thanks for the resources. Let me know if things are moving too slow. I'll let you know when I've done significant progress. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

No rush, as some Dutch villagers say: "a'ijt veda, ma' henig an" [Always continue, but in an easy-going way].--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems we are done here, though there are a few things in terms of prose which could be improved on, especially with the use of passive voice, which is sometimes vague, and the separate section on leadership being isolated from the rest of the article. I will take a look at a print-out of the article once more in a few hours, but I don't expect any further obstacles to GA.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Farang Rak Tham. I've now reorganized the leadership material. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks good enough to me. I am passing. Just a few notes to end with:

• You might want to add in that chart, mentioned above, or at least a list (cheat sheet) of all the organizations involved. This will greatly increase the accessibility of the article.
• I'd appreciate it if you could also assess one of my own GA nominations at WP:GAN#REL.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Farang Rak Tham! I'll definitely look into the issue of organizational relations since this is, admittedly, a complicated matter. I've also rectified at least some of the problem with passive voice in the Manifesto chapter. I'll give some serious thought to reviewing one of your GA noms as well. That would be my first as reviewer, but since I've enjoyed working with you, I feel confident that I could cope with such responsibility. With that in mind, see you in another GA review soon, I hope! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Good, see you! The joy was mutual.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Progress

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No Pinyin?

Currently there is no Pinyin in the Chinese infobox which is arguably indispensable given the fact that most China-related articles contain Pinyin. --123.161.170.169 (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Pinyin should be included. However, I didn't find transcription in any source when I did research for this article. I don't know enough Chinese to transcribe it myself. Anyone who can add Pinyin, please do. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)