Talk:The Christian Manifesto

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:The Christian Manifesto/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 20:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Review to follow soon.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Good article with reliable sources.

Overview

1. Prose:

• No copyright violations found.
• The writing is professional, but a bit unusual with regard to grammar and style. There are bits here and there that could be fixed, especially with regard to grammar and style, and also clarity. See detailed review below.

 Doing... – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

2. MOS: The article meets MOS guidelines. There is a minor detail: your see also section has some redundant links, that are already linked in the body of the article.

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

3. References layout:

• Meets guidelines.
• No dead links.

4. Reliable sources: Sources are reliable.

5. Original research: None found.

6. Broadness: I will check this at the end.

7. Focus: Article remains focused.

8. Neutral: Writing style is neutral. I will check use of sources at the end.

9. Stable: Article is stable.

10-11. Pics: The article does not have many pictures. Could you add more?

 Doing... I've added pictures of Wang Mingdao and Watchman Nee. I'm also planning to add a graph about the growth of signatories, but it needs a little bit of work still. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Great!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this suffices, though you are welcome to put the graph in as well, of course.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Detailed review per section

I will continue with a detailed review per section. I may make minor corrections as I go along, but you should not feel discouraged to discuss or revert those as appropriate.

Background

• ... was forced to re-imagine itself ... Ambiguous. Please rephrase.

 Doing... – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Wu had envisioned transforming the Chinese church even before 1949 ... Specify.

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• ... that declared missionary activities unwelcome in China ... Forgive me my ignorance, but do you mean all religious proselytizing, or just missions from foreign countries? If you mean all religious proselytizing, why was Wu prepared to make this sacrifice?

 Done. You were right, it was about foreign missionaries. It's an important distinction and I've updated the wording accordingly. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Wu and his associates became the people who were to implement ... Simplify.

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

History

• ... a new document that supported the government instead. Is this the most specific wikilink available?

 Done. A generic term was used for the powers that be. I've unlinked the word because it's obvious what it's referring to given the context. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• The manifesto had been largely, but not exclusively, written by Wu. How is this known?

 Doing... I recall this is mentioned in a couple of sources, including the one cited of course. I need to look them up for specifics. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I've opted to change the wording here, since sources are not very assertive about authorship. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• ... accusations that Zhou had personally penned the manifesto ... Some attributed the work ...: Who?

 Done Specified that accusations were made both in China and abroad; it was likely a common charge.  Doing... As for the second point, there is a footnote 29 to chapter 6 here but I can't access it right now, so I'll try again later. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Some were left discontent ... Some is a bit confusing here, because there is also an instance of it in the previous sentence. Please specify.

 Done. Specified that these were members of the clergy. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• The Christian magazine ... from that point on. Sentence is too long, please cut down.

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• ... over the subsequent days ...: Shouldn't this be at the beginning of the sentence?

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• The publication was accompanied by a campaign to collect signatures in support of it. Maybe just add among Protestants, just to make sure everyone follows what is happening.

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Signatures

This is a great historical analysis.

• The document's 40 original signatories included T. C. Chao ... Yanli. These are all Protestant devotees or ministers, I suppose?

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• ... David Aikman ...: though probably not an official requirement, I prefer to mention the profession of each scholar or author ("Journalist David Aikman"), but this one is up to you.

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• ... Conversely, the number of people who did not sign the manifesto count as people who did not want the Chinese church to sever its links with foreigners. That is obvious, but why?

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Most appear to have signed the document out of patriotic sentiments, not because of fundamental agreement with the actual provisions of the manifesto. Please explain this a bit.

 Doing... The source refers to: Barnabas [Charles West] (1952). Christian witness in communist China. London: SCM. pp. 38–39. OCLC 15085297. and Lyall, Leslie T. (1969). Red Sky at Night: Communism Confronts Christianity in China. Hodder & Stoughton. p. 37. ISBN 978-0-340-10816-1. Neither is online so I'll have to hunt for mentions in other sources. I also think plenty of other sources make mention of the patriotic aspect, since it had been a theme in Chinese Protestantism for quite a while (you can read about it in the article on the National Christian Council of China). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no doubts whether the content is sourced, but to be more specific, I am not certain what aspects of ... the actual provisions of the manifesto. are more than patriotic sentiments.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

 Doing... I'll look into this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. The point here is related to the fact that during this period Chinese nationalism became entangled with the national liberation brought about by the communists. Not all nationalists were obviously hardline communists, but the manifesto characteristically embodies both ideologies. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

So what you mean to say is that most appear to have signed the document out of patriotic sentiments, not necessarily because they agreed with the Communist liberation ideology expressed in it, correct?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. No one thinks that the entire population of China suddenly became convicted communists after the end of the civil war. Indeed, many patriots had been on the side of Chiang Kai-shek's anti-communist forces. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, got ya.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• It is possible that becoming a signatory ... This is a different reason than the patriotism from the previous sentence, it is more a form of fear. Perhaps indicate this by using a connector like also or moreover.

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• A second point here is that it seems to me It is possible ... only refers to the part about the voluntary basis, whereas the second part on test of loyalty seems pretty clear from the sources. So maybe add a word like certainly in the second part.

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Some notables ...: these people you are describing here are all ministers, am I right?

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• It has been speculated that ... although he could have ... The two statements are not given equal credence. Is this also the case in the sources cited?

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• ... though most of them had been for a petition against the nationalization ...: How is that related to foreign missions?

 Doing... It isn't, which is exactly why it's significant. Sources discuss this as a kind of ruse by Watchman Nee. I'll add something to that effect. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, great!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• In order to further the success of the manifesto ...: In order to collect more signatures, you mean?

This is not directly supported by the source, which says that the TSPM proponents were "preoccupied with the publication of the Manifesto". Remember, this is in August 1950, so between the Manifesto was issued in July and first published in September. The public signature campaign had not begun yet. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• You haven't quite explained what the TSPM is, just that it is a movement. Maybe just explain that a bit in one of the first sections.

 Doing... Definitely needs to be done. The gist of it is that the manifesto gave birth to the TSPM, which became, and still is, the only Protestant organization of its kind (something of an official "church", though not quite) that the government accepts: a major player in the religious life of the PRC. – Finnusertop

(talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done now. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Their efforts failed ... it ... it ...: inconsistent way to refer to the committee. I would go for they, although I have read somewhere that in American English it is more common.

 Done. I chose to go with "it" here to comply with AmE. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• For some...: For contemporary journalists, for current-day scholars, or for whom?

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Getting sleepy—see you later, probably tomorrow.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Content

• Finally, the church should strive to construct a Christianity indigenous to China embodying the so-called "Three-Self Principles": self-government, self-support, and self-propagation Perhaps this should be mentioned earlier, even in the lead, because the three-self movement is mentioned throughout the first sections.

 Doing.... Noting Wickeri 2011 p. 133 here for some backgroud. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• The manifesto implied that complacency would be rewarded ...: Meaning: to become politically aloof?

 Done. The source goes a bit further than that. I've adjusted it accordingly. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, good. But I still don't understand how complacency would be rewarded? Complacency as in "a feeling of quiet pleasure or security, often while unaware of some potential danger"?

In retrospect, it could also be that you mean 'complaisance', but that is an archaic meaning of complacency. Better use complaisance instead, or better even, use a verb phrase with comply.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. "Compliance" is the word I was looking for. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• ... but in truth, the government would soon engage in persecution of Christians. You mean, regardless of their political activities or attitudes?

 Done. The idea is that the manifesto addresses the Protestant community in China as a whole, but many (though not all) Protestants (and other Christians) ended up being persecuted. I've added the word "many" here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• ... about the social political of Christianity in China. Meaning?

 Done. Missed a few words there initially. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Reception

• This section has similar content to the section about signatures. In order for the narrative to run more smoothly, you might want to consider to move the section about content more upward, so the sections dealing with responses from Protestants are together.

• The manifesto was intended for both domestic and foreign audiences. Shouldn't this be in the last paragraph of the previous section?

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• China Inland Mission, naively, brushed off charges ...: Is naively supported by the sources cited?

 Doing... Yes it is. I'm looking for a way to attribute this properly. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

That is okay then. If it is from the sources, that's not editorializing.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• When missionaries finally came to terms with the manifesto, they had no choice but to condemn it. came to terms implies an attitude of resignation, going along with, which contradicts the second phrase. Please clarify.

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Missionary activities effectively ended in China after Chinese-American tit-for-tat concerning foreign funding took on and made their work too hard. Hard to follow. What do you mean by Chinese-American and foreign funding?

Do you mean to say: "Missionary activities ended in China when retaliation took place between China and the USA, and the USA withdrew their funding of missionary activities. This made missionary work almost impossible."

If so, this brings up two questions:

1. What was the USA retaliating for?
2. Why did it retaliate by withdrawing the funding of its own missionary activities there? Tit-for-tat implies some sort of revenge...

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Modern views

• The title of this section is not specific, in that you have cited opinion of modern scholars throughout the article. Furthermore, modern may be used from the industrial revolution onward, so it is unclear whether you are only describing 20th-21st-century scholars, or also people from the time period. But to avoid these problems, you could just indicate that this section further analyzes the developments in its entirety, by a title like Further analysis or something similar.

 Doing... – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure whether Significant viewpoints is specific enough.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Went with Further analysis. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• You mention many people in this section, without specifying whether these are scholars or religious representatives, or both.

• ... Chinese house church affiliates ...: Please define briefly inline.

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Most experts think that the large number of signatories cannot be explained with reference to political convenience or pressure only. Please merge with one of the sections below, that also deal with the reception of the manifesto.

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• ... appropriate in its historical setting. Ambiguous, please explain.

 Doing... The source is citing: Whyte, Bob (1988). Unfinished Encounter: China and Christianity. Morehouse. p. 203. ISBN 978-0-8192-1527-7., which is not online, so I'll have to do some digging. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

May I suggest: "Similarly, Bob Whyte argues the manifesto was appropriate in its historical setting, as "[t]he tide of history had left them with no other choice".

This is what the source cited says, anyway.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• ... The truth is, ...: Since this appears controversial, better attribute every opinion. But if there is scholarly consensus about the topic, you should state so explicitly.

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• ... within the united front. Which united front?

 Doing... The United Front Work Department, but I'll have to check whether association was formal or informal at that point. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done I've moved the explicit mention of the Department in another section where it is directly attributed and call it simply the "united front" here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Wickeri also points to Ting's total and the Anglicans' initial failure to sign as proof of alternatives to total submission in the early TSPM. Confusing. Try using more verbs and less nouns.

 Done. Rephrased. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• ... ended up within the movement too. Were given a position within the movement?

 Doing... Yes, and in fact K. H. Ting was one of those bishops. Going to look into sources for specifics. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, then just mention that they were given a position please; "ended up" seems ambiguous.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• A middle of the road position ...: You describe an opinion that is between two extremes here, but the previous two sections state that

1. the Protestant churches took the initiative, not so much the government;
2. the Protestants agreed with the manifesto.

The opposite opinion, that the Protestants were forced or had to submit to the government, is hardly described. It is mentioned briefly in ... The truth is, ... and here, in A middle of the road position ... but neither are attributed. Are you giving due credit to each opinion, following scholarly consensus?

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

In dealing with these issues in my own writing, I have found WP:INTEXT quite a useful guideline—I have heard it is not well-known.

• According to both...: both may not be neutral here, please remove.

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Observations outside of GA criteria

• You could consider removing the article from the Wikiproject religious texts, which seems contrived, and add the article to the Wikiproject Politics or History, or both.

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• There are many redlinked subjects in the body of the article: do you think these are all notable?

I'm going to assume they are. It's quite clear that notable China topics severely lack articles on English Wikipedia. When I created this article, I was astounded by the massive amounts of sourcing and still no article. This is probably the case for these red links as well. At any rate, I've checked the deletion logs of all redlinked articles and none has been deleted for lack of notability (Robin Chen was deleted A1, but I'm not sure if it's the same person.) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the same problem exists in Wikiproject Thailand.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• There are sections in the "Direction of Endeavor for Chinese Christianity in the Construction of New China" infobox that seem not to have been filled out.

 Doing... When I initially looked for romanizations, I didn't find anything that was ready to use. I could only find pinyin without the diacritics. I could revisit the issue and match each Chinese character with proper pinyin, but it will take time and it isn't a top priority. Noting that I've also seen the Chinese for "The Christian Manifesto" in some source. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. It is not a problem for GA though.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Would it be a good idea to add The Three-Self Manifesto as a redirect?

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Broadness

After checking sources on the subject, I found a number of details you might want to add, using only sources with 20 or more cites. Some of the links you may not be able to open, depending on what country you are in. These parts I believe should be included for GA:

• Some sources state the manifesto is from 1954,[1] others 1950. Any reason why this might be?

That would be an error on the part of such sources. Almost all sources give 1950, and that is the only date that fits in the chronology of events. The original publication can be found in the 1950 issue of People's Daily, so that should be the end of that. 1954 seems to be a point of histiographical reference because it's when the "Common Program" was replaced by the first Chinese constitution. Sources say that by this time the process around the TSPM had been finalized. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Some parts of the manifesto translated[2] or [3]

 Done I have the translation in the Further reading section. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't you think it is useful to include more translation or paraphrasing of the actual text in the article?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done The way I usually write about texts is that I try to avoid quoting or paraphrasing on my own, and I simply report those bits that reliable sources quote and paraphrase. I sometimes proved a small sample of sorts (usually the first few lines of the introduction) to illustrate literary style of the original work. I've done something like that here as well. I changed the Further reading entry to one that I'm certain has the full translation, by the way. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That's perfect, very nicely done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• The "accusation meetings" you mentioned were followed by putting people in re-education camps[4] or [5]

 Done. True. I added information based on my source that says that while these happened, the scale was very small. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It is too dismissive. Please rephrase for neutrality per WP:WTW:

Words used to link two statements such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second.

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to rephrase following source. I believe it follows the source more closely.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

These elements can be added for FA, but are not required for GA:

• Challenges to the christian churches at the time of the manifesto[6] or [7]

• Consequences of the manifesto for the churches way of life[8] or [9] and [10]
• Origins of the three-self principles came from Americans[11]
• Several other historical details[12]

In general, the article already covers almost everything—excellent research and use of sources.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC

 Doing... I'll definitely look at the sources you found, thanks a million! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

April, 12th

The main issue that needs some resolving is the writing style and grammar, but the article looks professional in all other aspects. Usually I check at the end whether the article is broad enough and whether it misses any important sources or points.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I will continue the detailed review later.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Waiting for response from nominator first.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking up this review, Farang Rak Tham. I've made some updates to the article. I will address the rest of your concerns in due course. Please don't hesitate to bring up new suggestions. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Great!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

April, 13th

See above for changes I've made, Farang Rak Tham. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You have been working hard, and have provided answers to many issues that came up. I have to go through some of these edits again, and cross off the ones that have been adressed. I have already asked a question about one edit above. Be back tomorrow.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

April, 14th

If you have any questions bout the issues I have raised, feel free to ask. And you should forgive me for my ignorance on the topic, but it is rather difficult to know everything in the GA category of Religion and philosophy, which is one of the only categories with no subcategories.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

completely agree with you, Farang Rak Tham, background and context needs some improvement. I've been a bit busy today, so I've not made many improvements. Thank you for your contributions. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

April, 15th

Thank you again for your excellent suggestions, Farang Rak Tham. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

April, 16th

See above for updates, @Farang Rak Tham:. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, great!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

April, 17th

New updates today, Farang Rak Tham. Please let me know if progress is not quick enough to your liking. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

No, not at all. Take your time :-) --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

April, 22nd

Almost there, hang on :-) --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

April, 25th

Two remaining items left, both pertaining to clarity of the narrative. After that, we can wrap this up. Items have been underlined. I suppose you can find definitions of the TSPM throughout the sources. :-) --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham, I've addressed the final concerns. It's been a lot of hard work bringing this article up to standard. I though I knew all about the topic after creating the article, but your suggestions and excellent questions have re-ignited my curiosity and joy of learning. Thank you very much for conducting this review! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I have made a final edit to change one header to reflect the content better--I hope you don't object. I am glad you were able to make it through. And I am sorry for my fuzziness, but just don't want anyone to delist your article afterwards, claiming it is propaganda or something.

If you are considering to do a DYK, let me know.

Lastly, if you have time, please do a GA of me as well. They are mostly in the section Religion and philosophy.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:43, 25 April 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.

Pre FAC

@Vanamonde93: I saw your name at Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC and since I am seriously concerning nominating this article for FAC, my first, I thought I'd ask your opinion on whether it stands a chance. Seeing that you advertise yourself as an expert on "areas of recent political history that don't receive much attention", you sound like the perfect candidate and this article definitely fits the bill. I don't know if your expertise covers Chinese political history or Christianity in China (I know a couple of experts in these fields, so no worries), but you seem to be interested in the 1950s. If you could have a glance at the article, and who knows, even read it – you might actually find it fascinating – I would be much obliged. I've got 12 GAs, 1 A, and 1 GA review under my belt, so I am not a total stranger to reviews (and this article got a pretty thorough GA review a few years ago), but an FA is an FA for a reason. Yours – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave some comments, but it may take me some days, as I'm rather busy both on-wiki and in real life at the moment. Based on a very quick look, there's two things you could try to address right away. First, check whether you have supplied sufficient context for a reader unacquainted with the subject; I think there's several places where additional context would be useful. Second, some copy-editing; there's a few grammatical errors, and some heavy use of editorial voice, which can be an issue particularly with contentious material. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much Vanamonde93. Please, take your time with your other on and off-wiki responsibilities. I'm not in a hurry with this. I'll probably ask someone who knows nothing about this subject to give it a read so that I can identify bits that need some context. I'll also have to take a look at the grammar with someone who is a native English speaker, since I'm not. Editorializing is a bit more difficult and I might need your help with that. Again, thank you, and don't feel compelled to make this article your top priority. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, circling back to this. I don't have the time to do a detailed copy-edit at the moment, and in any case that should be the final step. Here are some notes, that are a little garbled, because I'm writing them as I read.

• The first thing is to check that all relevant literature (or a representative sampling, where everything isn't reasonable) has been searched. I am not an expert in this respect, and if we have experts on Wikipedia they should be consulted. I did a sweep for searches; I wonder if this, and this, and this, will prove useful.
• Editorial voice; there are many statements that make me raise my eyebrows because I'm not certain they represent the scholarly consensus. Examples include:

  "its inherently foreign character" (why inherent?)

  "the Communist Party of China (CPC) was compelled to draw up a plan to persecute Christians" (why compelled?);

  " This casts some doubt on his stated rationale" (why?)

  "think that it sold out Christianity in China to the political elites (both colloquial and heavy editorial voice: also, how so?)

• Another issue is jargon; the article needs to be accessible to a reader who is not familiar with Chinese history or with Christian theology. Instances include:

  "Chinese Church" (is this a single body, or is it generic term?)

  "its confession was fundamentally at odds with the communist ideology" (why? what is the confession, here?)

  what is the Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries?;

• Some miscellaneous notes:

  What is a "convicted Marxist"?

  The number of signatories is confusing; if 400,000 were half the number of protestants, how is an additional million possible?

  There's substantial content about impact and persecution in the "signatories" section

  Many individuals are named but not glossed, and the reader needs to click a link to find out who they are; a gloss is necessary.

  The text frequently mentions that the text is controversial, but does not discuss in detail why this is so.

  The analysis section is quite scattered, and raises many issues without going into them in detail. I'd say this section needs substantial expansion to meet the comprehensiveness criterion at FAC: it's too brief for a document that seemed to have a very large impact.

  Similarly, some impacts denoted in the lead, especially about the TSPM, aren't discussed in the body.

This is all I have for the moment. I think you have made a reasonable start towards getting this to FA status, but it isn't quite there yet. I would begin by adding any available detail, especially about analysis; and then trying to organize it thematically. After that, someone should review the prose to make sure my above concerns, and issues with grammar, are addressed. I could be that person, but that will depend on my workload when you get to this point. I hope this is helpful. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Vanamonde93. I'll definitely need to address those concerns, and more, when I find the time to do so. I'll make use of some of the fine experts we have here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)