Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gao Qifeng/archive1

Gao Qifeng

Featured article candidates/Gao Qifeng/archive1

Nominator(s): — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Chinese painter, one of several who sought to introduce a "new national style" of painting that blended traditional approaches with Japanese and European ones, as part of a broader aspiration to create a new China. If this is promoted, it will be my first FA in... eight and a half years. I would like to thank Rollinginhisgrave and SchroCat for their comments at the GA and Peer reviews, respectively. The article is looking in really good shape! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor thing, but can the caption for the lead image say roughly when it was taken? If that information exists in sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, PARAKANYAA. Source was published 1931, so I've added c. 1931 to the caption. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BP!

I'll get back to it as soon as possible. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

Good to see something about China here.

The lead section seems to assume that the reader knows many things already, and could be improved by making some things clearer:
- You could state "older brother" instead of just "brother", to give a hint why he was following this brother.
  - Sounds good. Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Gao joined the Tongmenghui – You explain this term in the main text but not in the lead; since the lead should be as accessible as possible, it makes sense to explain it there too.
  - See below. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- where he established the Tianfang Studio – I had no idea what this "Tianfang Studio" is supposed to be. Perhaps add that he teached students there, which gives the reader a good impression.
  - changed to "he took students and established the Tianfang Studio." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead: he published The True Record to challenge the Qing dynasty – the main text does not state this fact; instead it seems to say that the Qing dynasty has already ended at that point.
- Fair. They were still very anti-Qing, based on my review of available documentation (putting Yuan Shikai back in his Manchu garb, for example), but by that point Pu Yi had abdicated. I've changed to "While abroad, Gao joined the revolutionary organization Tongmenghui challenge the Qing dynasty; after he returned to China, he published the nationalist magazine The True Record, which later fell afoul of the Beiyang government. " — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: later, the Beiyang government. Although offered a position in the new Republic of China, – The chronology seems wrong here, which is confusing. He was offered that position before he criticised the Beiyang government, but this sentence seem to imply it was the other way around, which makes little sense.
- I've nixed "new". The sources aren't entirely clear as to how early in the timeline of the ROC this was, just that it was before 1920. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You sometimes provide translations, or the originals of translations, and sometimes not. For example, the "Chinesische Malerei der Gegenwart" lacks a translation (it should be "Contemporary Chinese Painting"). Also, you have the Chinese original in explanatory note e, but not in m.

I'll get a bit of a footnote ready for the German exhibition. I've been unable to obtain the original Chinese for [m]; Chu does quote the passage in her 1981 publication, which was bilingual, but I only requested the English at REFEXCHANGE. I could nix the original from [e] to standardize. Thoughts? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't withhold support because of this rather minor issue; I just noticed the inconsistency. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a footnote on the Berlin exhibition. The source also indicates that Liu Haisu was the primary organizer, so I've noted that. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writing for the Southern Metropolis Daily, Wang Jingjing notes that Gao favoured vigorous yet delicate brushwork and vivid images. – This is supposed to be in source 8, the Guandong Museum site, but I can't find it there (which might be because I can't really read Chinese, so I'm just checking here).
- It's cited to [15]. I see that I did misattribute the quote, however. It should be attributed to Li Gongming of the Guangzhou Academy of Arts, as he was the one being interviewed and who mentioned a "vigorous yet elegant" style. Fixed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - But cite [15] is in the middle of a sentence; from my understanding, it would only support that particular part of the sentence, not the preceding sentences? It should be behind the sentence (behind the dot) to imply that it supports multiple sentences? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've always understood citations as supporting all preceding materials in the same paragraph, which is how the ref is used here. Referring to WP:CITETYPE, an in-line citation is "close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote;" it doesn't specify a leapfrog effect. That being said, since there is an attributed statement here, there is definitely an argument to duplicate the reference, which I have done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - If that is the case, my inline citations are incorrect in all my FAs. What about a case like this: who has been described as his goddaughter[36] or adopted daughter,[9], would cite [36] also support all preceding sentences of the paragraph, even if the sentence would be at the end of the paragraph? I always assumed it would, in such cases, only support this particular fact, since it is provided within the sentence, not at the end of it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, it's been a long day. I meant to say "all preceding materials in the same paragraph up to the previous reference." I certainly did not mean to imply that there were errors in any previous FAs.
        
        This is how all of my previous FAs have been written. As an example, the section #Release and reception at Panggilan Darah starts with "Panggilan Darah debuted at the Orion Theatre in Batavia on 30 June 1941. It was reported as a modest success," It cites two references, both of which are used to support the information. The next clause, "making most of its money from lower class audiences." is supported entirely by Biran. Likewise, Jacobus Anthonie Meessen cites everything from "He was one of the few photographers" through "opened a studio" to the same reference. The Encyclopedia of Jakarta reference is used exclusively to support what sort of materials were being sold at Meessen's studio/shop. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        That is different from how I do it; I need to look into that (and yeah, we don't seem to have any guideline here). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
used as settings for animal subjects – dot missing.
- Good catch. Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, reads very well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I'll get something ready on the German exhibition, but everything else should be done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jens. I believe I have addressed everything. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- While abroad, Gao joined the revolutionary organization Tongmenghui challenge the Qing dynasty; – something missing here now, is it "to" before challenge? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]