Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yuan (surname)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Yuan (surname)

This is a self-nomination. I've been working on and off on this article for about a year now. After incorporating suggestions from peer review in the last few days, making many improvements and adding a full list of references and sources, it's now relatively stable. The article by far the most comprehensive source of information on the surname in English. Yeu Ninje 23:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• support. very well written and comprehensive. this information can only be found in English and compiled as such on wikipedia, and nowhere else online or in another encyclopedia. excellent work! --Jiang 00:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support as per Jiang. Saravask 01:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• The peer review can be viewed here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Yuan (surname). --maclean25 03:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Awesome article on what could have been a mundane subject. Plaudits to everyone who worked on this!Borisblue 06:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and remember to claim Camildo's bounty here when it gets passed: Wikipedia:Bounty_board#Any_article_with_free_images Borisblue 06:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support - I have no knowledge of the subject matter, but the article looks great. I trust that our contributors with interests in Chinese matters will verify its accuracy. I also hope you will be looking at the 32 Chinese family names ranked higher by population - neither Wang (surname), the most popular according to List of common Chinese surnames, not Li (surname) (another family name that is sometimes said to be the most popular too) is anywhere near as good. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Kudos to you for your work! ''*Exeunt*'' Ganymead [[User_talk:Ganymead|^{<font color="green">Dialogue?</font>}]] 17:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Superb article on a topic that mustn't have been the easiest to write upon. Ambi 23:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• A model article. Support. --Michael Snow 00:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. A few quibbles, somewhat technical:
  • There's a problem with excess wikilinkage, especially in "Spread of the surname". Plenty of repeated links for no apparant reason.
  • A bit of a footnote bonanza. A lot, if not most, of notes state uncomplicated ("state the obvious" is a recommendation for prose, not footnotes), and as far as I can tell, completely uncontroversial facts. One of the notes in the first paragraph is used only to explain an off-topic statement of transcription systems. This is not an appropriate or proper use of footnotes as far as I can tell. Some other examples of notes that could really be done without are 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 18. Also, is there any chance that ancient primary sources such as those of Sima Qian be replaced with just one modern work on Chinese history? I'm personally skeptical to using very old history material first hand in an encyclopedia unless the works themselves are discussed.
  • No proper reference section.
  • I don't see any more need for a "Prominent personages"-list in this article than I do of any other arbitrary list of famous people loosely associated to an article.

  Peter ^Isotalo 02:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • • Ive de-linked the "Spread of the surname" accordingly.
    • The footnotes look fine to me. The second footnote, since you've mentioned it, could indeed be incorporated into the lead section text itself, but that would create unnecessary clutter, especially in the lead section where we can least afford it. I support the way the information is moved off as an aside. Footnotes 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 18 are all references. I don't see why you would want to delete references.
    • references are under "Notes and references". If this is a problem, notes and references can be separated.
    • I think the "Prominent personages" section is very relevant. A surname is greatly characterized by the people holding that surname. Presenting the famous people who held this surname is practical, interesting, and informative.

    --Jiang 05:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    • I accept your point about wikilinkage. The edits which Jiang has made are appropriate.
    • It's true that there are relatively more footnotes than other featured articles, but I think it's good academic practice to include that number of footnotes for an article of this length. More importantly, specific footnotes is better than a reference section in this case, because there are very few general sources which would be appropriate in a reference section. The most important sources for this article are the Standard Histories, especially Ouyang Xiu's Xin Tang shu (which gives a family tree from around 1046 BC to the 9th century); and also Hou Han shu, Sanguo zhi and Jin shu (which cover the early Yuan clans of Ru'nan and Chen). Placing them in a reference section without quoting direct page numbers as you can do in footnotes would not be very useful. ****There is no way to replace them with a modern work because there is no authoritative modern work. I dare say this is the most comprehensive and reliable resource on the surname you will find anywhere. The only other important sources are localised family genealogies, sometimes with material as early as the Song Dynasty. If they were put in a reference section, it would almost be completely meaningless since they are generally not easily accessible to the public. Thorough referencing in footnotes would help those conducting genealogical research. As far as I know, a section of notes and references is accepted Wikipedia practice.
    • Footnotes are supplementary to the article in that they support the assertions which are made. For example, the article states "descendants of Yuan Taotu are mentioned by name in the Zuo Zhuan as holding high office in the state of Chen", then reference is given from the Zuo zhuan to support that fact. This supports the goal of verifiability. They are not common knowledge nor does the article "state the obvious". Footnotes 6, 8, 18 are relative obscure facts. Footnotes 11, 13, 14, 18 all point to sources for further reading or research.
    • What Jiang says about the introduction is right. Transliteration issues are just technical details which would only serve to confuse a reader if placed so early in the article.
    • I also agree with Jiang about the prominent personages section. Many of the figures in there, like Yuan Taotu, Yuan An, Yuan Shao, Yuan Huan and Yuan Chonghuan were instrumental in establishing, expanding the surname and increasing its profile. They were also leaders of their clans and proud bearers of the surname - certainly not "loosely connected". --Yeu Ninje 11:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The point about the transcription comment is that it's not the least bit relevant to the article. If the article was actually about transcription of Chinese, it would be, but it's about a surname, so it's really just off-topic trivia. The same really goes for note 3 as well. There's really a rather annoying abundance of transcription- and pronunciationcruft in most China- and Japan-related article these days and it doesn't seem to be there to please anyone but those who already know it.
      • Footnotes are not references; they're notes that specify details of references (sources). Removing a few footnotes does not mean the source itself has to be removed. (That's the whole point of having a separate section.) And while it is certainly nice to be academic, Wikipedia is not the appriopriate place for it. We're writing encyclopedic articles for a very general audience, not academic treatise for experts. Any note which refers to a source merely for "further reading" is inappropriate and unless the source is actually used to reference any of the prose, it belongs in a "Further reading"-section. A motivated researcher can take the hint without needing to force it on every single reader.
      • Pure lists of famous people in articles are always trivia. If there's a need to refer to people named Yuan, it should be done in prose, not in separate list-sections. (Nor in lists disguised as prose.) These things also have a tendency to attract yet more trivia and are very hard to delimit. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
        • The focus of the entire sentence in question is over the different spellings rendered in the Latin alphabet of the name. It is not about the name in Chinese. Since these spellings are derived from the listed transcription systems, they are every bit relevant. Multiple spellings exist for different dialects due to the existence of different systems of Romanization. It is important to specify which one we are using because space does not permit that we list every rending of the name in the Latin alphabet. Most people (as in most people familiar with the Chinese language) do not know all these romanization systems. They usually only know Hanyu Pinyin at a proficient level.
        • the FA criteria specifically calls for inline references. There is no policy against footnotes. In fact, the "notes and references" header used here is prescribed by Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Footnote_notation.
        • I don't see how the list is trivia. Yeu Ninje already stated that these people were instrumental in establishing, expanding the surname and increasing its profile. Lists are not banned from Wikipedia. You will see much more trivial lists elsewhere. If the list is trivia, then the whole article is trivia. After all, these Yuans "just share the same last name". --Jiang 19:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Please note that the Surname/Clan name in Chinese Culture is held in more importance than in western cultures. The section is definitely relevant IMO Borisblue 16:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Difference between perception of family names between Chinese and Western European culture has absolutely no relevance to my objection. The list is trivia because it's arbitrary and most of the Yuans aren't even related to one another. They just share the same last name. --Peter ^Isotalo 16:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
        • It's not true to say that most on the list aren't related to each other. Yuan An, Yuan Shao, Yuan Shu, Yuan Huan, Yuan Hong and Yuan Shansong come from two major Yuan clans very close to one another and all are documented descendants of Yuan Taotu, who is the first on the list. Yuan Chonghuan is one of the most famous descendants of Yuan An, and I specifically make a point about clans claiming descent from Yuan An in the article. As for some of the later figures, in theory at least, all of the late imperial and modern Yuan are also descendants of Yuan Taotu and so are linked because of that. Including them could also be indicative of the extent of modern day distribution and continuing strength of the surname. Yeu Ninje 20:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
          • That's just a substandard of explaining it to readers, Yeu. If you want to make clear that the name is still common, do so in prose, like with any other fact. And since I now noticed that half of the list is of people that are already mentioned at least once in the article already, I'm removing the list outright. I urge you to consider a more creative solution to keeping the names than simply reverting me. / Peter ^Isotalo 02:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Peter, I don't want to get into an edit war with you. I've given my reasons and received support from others. A consensus has not been reached about the removal of the "prominent personages" section, so I'm reverting it. Please do not remove it unless you have more support. Yeu Ninje 02:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
              • You're being very insistant about keeping duplicate links. Considering incomplete lists are frowned upon in all other types of FACs, I don't find your motivations less arbitrary than the selection of names. And, again, half of the names are already linked in the text. Why not just make an extra list right below the lead in case someone would miss the second one? / Peter ^Isotalo 13:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
                • The list is not meant to be a list of all people surnamed Yuan who ever existed, it is a list of "prominent personages" with that surname. Given that criteria, it is relatively complete, mentioning what I and others consider to be the best known holders of the surname. In that sense, it is not arbitrary at all. Also, I've already stated the importance of these figures to the history of the surname as well as a reflection of the current strength of the surname. It is true that some of the names have been linked in the main text, but these are very scattered. I think it's useful to collect them together and present them at the end. Yeu Ninje 00:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It is not helpful to denigrate reliable footnotes either here or elsewhere; this singular fixation with deleting footnotes and sources endangers Wikipedia's goal of presenting to users some semblence of reliability. I am in complete accord with Yeu Ninje's position that the "prominent personages" must stay in the article. Yeu Ninje has explained his/her position well and now has the consensus behind his/her model and comprehensive article as it stands. Congratulations are again in order for Yeu Ninje; maintain your resolve and this article will most certainly become featured. Saravask 08:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Though I have some reservations given what I think is the relevance of the article itself (what about an article about ``Smith``?), the topic itself is so well covered that i decided to support it.--Anagnorisis 20:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• support and I would support a similar, well written, sourced and interesting article about the popularity of the surname smith and its origins. Why not? Kit 02:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support, I can find no fault with this article. Andrew Levine 03:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Extremely minor object: the referenced works are listed somewhat inconsistently, sometimes including a transliteration of the title, sometimes omitting it. In addition, the names of the authors are only given in their transliterated forms, but the titles include both (as well as a translation). It would be helpful if all of the references were in a more standard format. Kirill Lokshin 04:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The transliteration of title helps a person to find the title in a library, since most library databases don't use Chinese text. A transliteration is not provided for internet sources since there doesn't exist the purpose of helping to locating it (i.e. you just have to click on the link). The translation of the title makes the title meaningful to someone who doesn't understand Chinese. Chinese text is not included for the author since it wouldn't be that much use and isn't generally the practice in sinology bibliographies. In that sense, the references are standardised. Yeu Ninje 04:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

  I stand corrected, then. Support. Kirill Lokshin 19:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support --Melaen 17:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)