Talk:Religion of the Shang dynasty

Religion of the Shang dynasty is currently a Philosophy and religion good article nominee. Nominated by Strongman13072007 (talk) at 09:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Short description: none

Add some more information for this page in order to make it more complete.

I wrote this page, but I think that my sources are not enough. Could you find mỏe supporting data? Strongman13072007 (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within wikipedia and transclusion

@Strongman13072007, you appear to be copying large chunks of text from other articles. Just so you know, the authorship of Wikipedia articles when used still needs to be attributed, please see WP:CWW for details: just note the article you're copying from in the edit summary.
That said, a lot of the copied text requires a lot of editing work, in my view. In a way, this could potentially double the work I need to do to edit the text, and it can be an inconvenience to go back and forth hunting down instances of the same flawed paragraph. Do you think it would be possible to WP:TRANSCLUDE the excerpts from the source article instead, so that improvements made once can improve all articles it's included in? Remsense留 03:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll paraphrase the texts. Recently I copied paragraphs from the original sources to the editing window and left it for another time for paraphrasing. But I think there was a mistake, and the button "Publish" was pressed. I have paraphrased some texts, and I rewrote the longest ones that take considerable paraphrasing effort as quotations from the attributed authors.

My apology for the mistakes. Strongman13072007 (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original sources as in other Wikipedia articles, or as in the referenced sources? Because you shouldn't do either unattested, but you seriously shouldn't do the latter. Regardless, you should state which articles you have copied from, attribution is required even when copying within Wikipedia, as stated above. Remsense留 18:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Strongman13072007 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't enjoy doing so, but copyright issues can really create bigger problems with articles, so they have to be taken seriously. Remsense留 23:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have any thoughts on transclusion, by the way? I'm not sure how much of this material is covered on other wiki articles and could be transcluded somehow. Remsense留 01:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Distilled secondary source versus tertiary source

@Strongman13072007, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I am concerned that this article is not quite being written as an encyclopedia article—a tertiary source synthesising an understanding of a subject from secondary sources for a general audience, but rather simply listing paraphrased, undigested points made by your secondary sources, and including a lot of them in a way that will make the article very hard to improve in the future. The article is presently 10k words, it should probably be around half that, with the extra information put into related articles or subarticles. Remsense留 00:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are a lot of style concerns, please see MOS:ZH as to why you shouldn't be including so much Chinese-language text in this article, it is not useful to the vast majority of readers. Remsense留 00:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm scanning for unnecessary and subjective texts and have deleted some of them. Some broad topics mentioned can be put into other articles, but I'm searching for more sufficient sources so I amn't able to do it at the moment. Strongman13072007 (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also—please be aware that you are massively overlinking in the article. I've gone through and fixed it and other style issues (such as using Chinese characters with a linked term, which goes against our style guide. I would recommend reading the Manual of Style in general also, I would prefer to make fixes once, and not come back and see the same issues again, which if i recall correctly has already happened once, before I can start working on larger problems in the article.
These larger problems are made daunting by effusive repeating of the same things over and over again in the previously undigested manner, making it very difficult for anyone else to try and improve the article, especially when you are prone to just undo their changes, seemingly without noticing.
Due to these issues, the article is presently nigh-unreadable, unfortunately. Remsense留 03:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize for my faults. I kind of repeating information without noticing it. I have sorted out some serious repetitive sentences and acknowledge that I've gone too far by this point. I've cleared about 10 thousand bytes, and currently looking for irrelevant information.

Could you clarify what major issues this article has? I'd like to correct them and see if any improvements can be made. Strongman13072007 (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In turn, I sincerely apologize for getting confrontational in my tone, it was rude: you are working very hard on this article, and it's highly appreciated from someone who wants to see China topics better covered on here. I haven't gotten to edit this article much because you've been working on it consistently and I dislike stepping on others' toes, I'll take a look tomorrow. Cheers! Remsense留 09:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple issues" template

I think that some article problems in the "Multiple issues" template have been addressed. Can you sort out any issues left? I think that some indicators regarding issues can be removed. Strongman13072007 (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass revision and change

I've done a total revision of this page and made changes. I did these things: Reduced lists to short paragraphs + Rearrange all sections + Turn some sections into subsections + Erase unrelated topics So maybe you could re-read the new version and give me some advice? Strongman13072007 (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently I have basically remixed all sections hoping to create a more cohesive content. There are currently five sections now instead of seven like before. I also removed too deviated paragraphs. Strongman13072007 (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe my citations are wrong

@Remsense I read some other sources pointing out that works like Keightley 1978 and Eno 2008 support some information, but I can't specify the pages since I don't have real access to these works. I think that I've cited these sources in paragraphs that they don't support. I really appreciate it if you do some revision of these sources and delete them if necessary. Strongman13072007 (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look ASAP, thanks for asking! Remsense诉 10:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, you can specify the pages for those books. Strongman13072007 (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Style

@Strongman13072007, could you please take a look at MOS:ZH and implement its guidelines, especially considering language tagging and making sure not to use diacritics in running text for pinyin? It is rather frustrating to come back to this article a few months later and see most of my style and copyediting fixes I already spent hours doing overwritten or disregarded. Remsense诉 01:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Are diacritics a problem, or have I put them to excessively in the article? Strongman13072007 (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our guideline is meant to reflect the general WP:COMMONNAME naming policy in the Chinese context: i.e. most English-language publications don't use pinyin with diacritics, so we avoid using them in running text (meaning, outside of linguistic notes in parentheses and the like) because that's the form a general English-language audience is most familiar with

Does that make sense? I know these things can be unintuitive, and I want to explain them well if I can. Remsense诉 04:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so I get it. But is it OK to apply diacritics and italics to some names for places, peoples and spirits in the article? I've seen the "Late Shang" article having such toned, italicized names. Strongman13072007 (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another point is there is simply too many superfluous Chinese-language terms listed inline. For some, like Di, it is important, but unless there's something English-language readers might like to know about the word specifically, we do not really need to be told what the word they used for "wind" was, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Remsense ‥ 诉 11:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you read through the article and say what Chinese terms are appropriate within the context? And whether some ancestors need Chinese terms or not? Strongman13072007 (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense I removed the majority of terms in the Sacrifice section. Is it OK? Strongman13072007 (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Religion of the Shang dynasty/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Strongman13072007 (talk · contribs) 09:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Remsense (talk · contribs) 18:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How long would it take for a review, btw?Strongman13072007 (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fairly long, dense article, but I'm planning on having it done within the typical week span—and (fingers crossed) getting a lot of the way there in the next two days. Remsense ‥ 论 00:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind my jumping at this opportunity: I've been watching this page since it was created and have wanted to help, and I think an in-depth GAN at this stage would be perfect. Remsense ‥ 论 18:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me when I initially created the page. Can you explain the things in the progress box? Strongman13072007 (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are each of the GA criteria, during the review I'll be updating it reflecting the state of the article as you or I make improvements. I'm a very hands-on reviewer, so I'll likely be making a lot of the improvements myself if they're clear enough, but in any case you're of course free to quibble or ask about anything I'm doing. I can be a bit of a perfectionist but I don't want that to stall the review. Remsense ‥ 论 00:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm pleased to help when possible. Strongman13072007 (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I received a Talk notification that you all were seeking comments. Did you have specific questions? I made a few copy edits to the article, including deleting the term afterlife (under funerary). Let me know if these are useful and feel free to revert if need be. ProfGray (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to contribute any critique or thoughts during the process, that'd be great! Remsense ‥ 论 22:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you done assessing any criteria? I'd be pleased to know if there is any problem. Strongman13072007 (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Strongman13072007, I apologize deeply for the delay: the same day I last posted here, I began falling under the weather. That resulted in me being unable to reliably sit upright for a few days, but I should've posted here letting you know sooner. I'm just now getting back to being able to work on this, but I can also release this review and put it back in the pool since it was unfair for me to claim it immediately if you would prefer another reviewer have a shot. In any case, I'm getting back to it if that's okay with you. Remsense ‥ 论 04:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You reviewing the article is the best. Carry on with the job! Strongman13072007 (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can make any edits necessary, thanks! Strongman13072007 (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Few questions or thoughts from an outsider

I started looking at this article, which cover considerable ground and goes into depth on many issues. The main author obviously spend a great deal of time on this article.

Prose -- Some of the writing is stilted or awkward. There are also some grammar problems. Was a translator or other writing tool used to help generate any of the text? If so, that should be disclosed.

References. Dizzying number of citations and sources, which I mostly do not have. Isn't there a way now to combine the repeated sources, while still indicating the different pages? See Template:Reference page. This would make the number of footnotes more manageable for the reader. It'd also make it much easier to review and spot check the article.

For instance, I started with the pdfs by Eno in 2010. Much of the article writing does reflect the source fairly. But then I started to wonder -- Maybe Eno 2010a and 2010b are not Reliable Sources? After all, they are from a college course, not published and not peer reviewed. Some sentences seem to be paraphrasing too closely. (But I also looked at Wu Ding, for which the contributor also used Eno.)

Example of a practical implication -- Eno 2010a mentions Zeus. Should this be omitted? If kept, I suppose it only belongs in one of the three theories of Di, right?

An aside -- speaking of the three theories of Di -- the article mostly treats Di as the "high god" -- but isn't that taking one of the three theories as normative? Might be justified, but should it be explained?

Detail. The article is well-structured. Yet, as an outsider to this field, I still wonder if some details are suitable for the broad encyclopedic article. For instance, why do readers need to know the (non-English) vocabulary for various sacrificial items or methods?

Anyway, hope some of these comments are useful. Kudos to Strongman for such dedication to this article! ProfGray (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I have a question for the creator, @Strongman13072007. When the article was first created, it was a very significant first edit. Was it based on a sandbox, copy/paste, draft or how was that done? ProfGray (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a week drafting it first before publishing. At that time I was familiarizing myself with encyclopedic prose of Wikipedia. Does it help? Strongman13072007 (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, what page were you drafting it in? I'm not seeing it in the edit history. ProfGray (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote the whole thing in the edit box like in later edits. Strongman13072007 (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose: I write it myself, with no translators. English is not my mother tongue anyway, so writing in English is also a way for me to check my problems, thanks for reminding!

References:

+ I follow the reference style of the Late Shang article, which is rated GA. I think we can keep it that way.

+ For Eno's sources, I think they contain reliable information because Eno is an expert on this subject matter and most of this content in his lecture materials is covered in his published works (1990, 2008). For the last 3 months, I've changed quite a few citations from Eno 2010a-b to Eno 1990 and Eno 2008. But there still remain things that I ain't sure if there's any source saying the same thing, so Eno 2010a-b are still kept.

Practical implication: Eno's text says that Di's role is like Zeus to the Greeks. What he means is that Di was inevitably the highest figure in the Shang religion regardless of theories, just like the leading role of Zeus.

One more thing here: As I mentioned, all there theories of Di more or less take him as the highest figure of the religion, so calling him 'high god' is the most frequent way relevant texts refer to Di. I dedicate the Cosmology section to explain the 'ancestor' and 'celestial pole' theories. My source is mostly Didier (2009), though the text itself is very hard to read and I had to spend months absorbing it before I could form this section.

Chinese terms: ritual names like xie, yong, yi, ji and zai cannot be omitted because they were the sacrificial rituals that formed the core of Shang religious practice; ignoring them makes it harder for me to write the History section (the history involves a lot about the formation and change in those five rituals. The names of gods like River and Earth are expressed by the characters for river and earth, but they should be mentioned because in this context we understand they were gods to the Shang. The words for methods or materials is less important, but they can be useful for more intense readers.

Hope this helps! Strongman13072007 (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense Does any of these help clear the confusion for your review? Strongman13072007 (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! I want to post my own update, and promise you that I will have a significant chunk, if not the entire review done by the end of Friday. I want to apologize again but don't want to merely apologize again—you've done a lot of wonderful work that I've been reading but still haven't been able to properly work on. Remsense ‥ 论 04:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]