Talk:History of science and technology in China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of science and technology in China (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

An entry from History of science and technology in China appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on February 9, 2007.

	This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 The "Scientific and technological stagnation" section 2 Failed GA 3 Additional material 4 Great work 5 Passed GA

[edit] The "Scientific and technological stagnation" section

I don't agree with the way it concludes. It's arguing for a point of view that can be said about other philosophies/religions. Xiner (talk, email) 20:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Needham is the main scholarly source for research on Chinese science, and other views are also represented. Secondly, true science developed in the environment of the Scholastic universities during the Renaissance of the 12th century. The limitations to science from other philosophies/religions occurs in varying degrees and for different reasons, but scholars find it is of particular note as to why the major Chinese technological innovations did not develop into science. --Grimhelm 20:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's possible to rephrase the section so that it appears less argumentative and more NPOV. The "However..." needs not be there, for example. If we say, "Needham believes, and most scholars agree...Other theories include..." then it'll convey the same message. Xiner (talk, email) 21:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree it would make more sense if we grouped the political and cultural factors together, and had the more recent economic theories come after it. I have changed it accordingly. --Grimhelm 22:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 22:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) --Grimhelm 22:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

This article is absolutely not comprehensive enough. The subject is vast. --Ideogram 02:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we have a few points that most need expansion? It might give editors a good place to start. Thanks. :-) --Grimhelm 17:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not really familiar with the subject; I was hoping to learn more from the article. Two things spring to miind: Chinese history is supposed to go back thousands of years, but here we have only the four great inventions and the middle ages; and a lot more can be said about Needham's work. --Ideogram 19:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

May I recommend a brief summary of Needham's work: Robert Temple: The Genius of Chins ISBN 978-0233002026 [1]. It's popular rather than academic, but it's a nice overview of inventions, and could be a fine strating point for a longer version of this article.--Niels Ø (noe) 20:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You can also integrate material from Chinese mathematics here, although that article is terribly thin. I'm also interested in discussion of the five elements wood, earth, metal, water, fire; the emphasis on the number five and numerology in general; acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine; Chinese constellations; the list goes on and on.

One of the problems with copying material was the lack of citations. I intentionally left out Chinese mathematics, as the History of Science articles go by the following: "The history of mathematics… [is] covered in other articles. Mathematics is closely related to, but distinct from science (at least in the modern conception). Technology concerns the creative process of designing useful objects and systems, which differs from the search for empirical truth." Acupuncture and medicine are certainly ancient areas that would do well to be included. --Grimhelm 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would rather include material that was not well cited than no material at all. Your point on mathematics is well-taken. --Ideogram 00:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional material

You may want to add material from Book of Silk, Han Dynasty silk comet atlas, and Mawangdui Silk Texts here. Those articles themselves need to be merged, but that's a separate matter. --Ideogram 03:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great work

Keep it up! --Ideogram 21:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) What happened to the Han Dynasty silk comet atlas article, by the way? I saw it briefly and it looked quite substantial, and I can't tell if it was merged somewhere. Also, how far off being a good article would you say it is now (and what other areas should we work on next), considering that it is 17 KB long at this point. --Grimhelm 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That article has been moved to Comets and the swastika motif. It is not really related to China. The primary obstacle to GA is more citations/references. 17 KB is not long, the article could still use expansion. The coverage looks pretty balanced now, I think mainly you just need more depth. --Ideogram 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I know 17 KB isn't that long, but I would have thought that the current inline citations were quite good (although some more would be nice, particularly in the final section); unless you mean copying material from other articles, where the lack of citation is a problem. Is suppose that getting the balance was the hard part, and more depth should be achieveable. --Grimhelm 21:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to submit it for GA again. It has a pretty good chance of passing. --Ideogram 22:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added some more on Zhang Heng, and renominated it for GA. Thanks again. --Grimhelm 16:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I should be thanking you, you are doing all the work. --Ideogram 16:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Still, you were the one who provided the links to the articles on the early texts and gave direction. :-) --Grimhelm 16:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a pleasure working with you and I hope we can do so again. --Ideogram 16:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passed GA

Note that this GA review was separate from and uncoordinated with the previous one above.

1.

• (a) Prose is straightforward, and follows an easily understandable chronologic format.
• (b) Again, chronological structure, grouped by era. The lead is there and looks good.
• (c) Looks good in relation to standards. I fixed one header myself, but nothing serious.
• (d) Plenty of active links to explain terms.

2.

• (a) References are here and cited.
• (b) Some citations are not in the right format. Look at the section "Scientific and technological stagnation" and change the two bare links into proper cite format.
• (c) Sources seem to be from reliable sources.
• (d) No original research, has quotes from experts.

3.

• (a) I would prefer a bit more about the early Chinese philosophy of science. Right now it is a little unclear as to how the basic Chinese view of science spurred invention. Still has enough info to go on, in my opinion.
• (b) Very focused, no deviations.

4.

• (a) Several viewpoints are represented without bias.
• (b) No undue assertion of viewpoints.

5. Seems stable, good crew working on it.

6.

• (a) Good tagging and captions.
• (b) Images present.
• (c) All images seem to be public domain.

In summary:

• 1. Pass
• 2. Pass minus
• 3. Pass minus
• 4. Pass
• 5. Pass
• 6. Pass

Overall: Pass

Nice work. Please consider the citation and comprehensiveness issues I raised above. --Danaman5 19:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Ideogram 22:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both. :-) --Grimhelm 23:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)