Talk:Yu-chien Kuan

"Nice clothes"

This isn't a problem at the DYK level, but this bit reads a little more like a children's book than an encyclopedia article (no disrespect to the author intended: I've written similarly silly passages while not paying attention to what I was doing). I'd suggest "formal", "expensive", or even "westernized"; but I cannot read the original source. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the advice, no offence taken. The CUHK website is having technical issues right now and I cannot double check the source, but I remember the original Chinese term simply means nice or fancy in a more formal tone, but not necessarily expensive or formal. Unfortunately it's hard to find an English word that's equivalent both in meaning and tone. I will try to rephrase it once the website is back up again. -Zanhe (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: The website is working again and I've now rephrased the sentence. Sometimes I get too focused on the accuracy of individual words instead of the sentence as a whole! -Zanhe (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zanhe: Thanks! Vanamonde (Talk) 00:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yu-chien Kuan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 21:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take this. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Zanhe: I've essentially finished, just so you know. Since you're usually very active, I won't bother putting it on hold. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Comments addressed.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   AGF on non-English sources

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   AGF on non-English sources

   C. It contains no original research:

   AGF on non-English sources

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No extraneous material

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No issues

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Image license checks out to the best of my abilities.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Comments addressed, passing shortly. See one reply below for a matter not worth holding this up over.

Comments

• You wouldn't happen to know at what level his father studied/graduated abroad?

I found several sources that mention his father's studies in France and the US, but unfortunately none of them mention the degree(s) he earned, if any. -Zanhe (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• "the resistance" is ambiguous to someone not well-versed in local history; I assume it's resistence to the Japanese; could you explain, and possibly link?

Yes, "resistance" in the context of WWII usually refers to anti-Axis resistance, and anti-Japanese in China. War of Resistance is a redirect to Second Sino-Japanese War. I've added "anti-Japanese" for clarification. -Zanhe (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• "and perfected his English" is the implication that he learned his English from the Americans? If so, you should tweak to say that; right now, he could be perfecting it elsewhere. I'd suggest "where" in place of "and".

The school he attended in Shanghai (St. Francis Xavier's College) was a Catholic school that taught in English, and he then perfected his English through interaction with American soldiers. I've added a bit of explanation to the text. -Zanhe (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Soviet experts" of what? It's an odd phrase without further explanation.

After the Communists took over China, the Soviet Union provided assistance to the PRC in many areas. The people they sent over to help are collectively called "Soviet experts". See the book China Learns from the Soviet Union, for example. Unfortunately there's no article to link to and I think explanation of this historical background is out of the scope of the article. -Zanhe (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

This still bothers me a little. How about "Soviet government representatives", since they're clearly being sent at the behest of the government?

@Vanamonde93: I understand it may sound a bit strange to someone unfamiliar with the background, but "Soviet experts" is the standard term in literature (a less common term is "Soviet specialists"). "Government representatives" is a bit misleading as it sounds as if they had been mainly bureaucrats, while in fact most of them were engineers and technicians. I've now changed "experts" to "technical specialists", hopefully that'll clarify things a bit. -Zanhe (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better, certainly. If you have a single source that explains what you just did above, it would work well as a footnote. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• There is some chronological back-and-forth in the last two paragraphs of PRC. I'd suggest reworking the first sentece of the last paragraph into the previous, so that it flows better. I can do this if you'd like.

Done. Please feel free to make further improvements as you see fit. -Zanhe (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Do we know when he got married and what his wife's name was?

Found a source that mentions his wife's name (Meizhen), and added to the article. Unfortunately no mention of when they got married. -Zanhe (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• "wanted to take him as well" there's no other country that seems to want to take him at this point, so the "as well" is weird; why not just "US offered him asylum"?

It's supposed to mean as well as Ma Sicong, whom the US had already accepted. But I see your point and changed the sentence accordingly. -Zanhe (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Was his mother's death a result of bad treatment because of his defection? If not, this needs some adjustment.

Good point. I've reworded the sentence to clarify the situation. -Zanhe (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• I would drop the "prominent" in "prominent author". It's one of those terms that seem very meaningful at first, but doesn't really add information.

Deleted "prominent" and added his former position as Minister of Culture instead. -Zanhe (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Is he coauthoring books with the same wife who denounced him and then went to prison when he fled? This is strange enough that some explanation would be nice...

No, it's the second wife Petra Häring, whom he met in Germany. I thought it was clear from the context, but added "second wife" for clarification. -Zanhe (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Can you explain what the Chinese sources are, just for my personal satisfaction? There's only four, but they are the meat of the sourcing, and I can't read any of them.

The CUHK source is an article published in a magazine and collected by the Chinese University of Hong Kong as part of its people's history project. CAC News is the website of a Chinese-Canadian newspaper. The Paper is a major Chinese news site, and Sina is a major Chinese news portal, although the article was originally published in the newspaper Shidai Weekly. -Zanhe (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for your review. I have a few unfinished articles to complete, and will try to address the issues in a few days. Thanks for your patience. -Zanhe (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Sorry about the delay and thanks again for your patience. I've responded to your comments above the best I could. Please let me know if you have any further questions. -Zanhe (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)