Template:Did you know nominations/Imperial hunt of the Qing dynasty

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Imperial hunt of the Qing dynasty

(

)

~~... that China's Qianlong Emperor called off the imperial hunt to receive the visit of Britain's Lord Macartney?~~

Created/expanded by Difference engine (talk). Self nominated at 01:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC).

Hook is sourced, neutral, and rather interesting. Article is new and long enough. Rcsprinter¹²³ (dialogue) @ 20:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've struck the hook because (a) received the visit makes no sense as English, and (b) the link behind visit is a mysterious Easter egg. There seems to be some desire to work Macartney Embassy in somehow, but I don't know how to do it while fixing these problems. EEng (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Macartney's visit provided a lot of the primary source material used by contemporary scholars, so I was eager to get that into the hook if possible. What's the issue with "received the visit"? Someone's visiting; you receive them formally. Maybe in a reception area, which is what the hunting grounds served as much of the time. --Difference engine (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I spoke to harshly when I said "makes no sense". Let me rephrase: it may be my American ears, but receive the visit of is just too far from the more common I received a visit from, and it sounds weird. It seems more natural to receive the person, not the person's visit. May I suggest a radical simplification?

ALT1 ... that China's Qianlong Emperor called off his annual imperial hunt to receive Lord Macartney?

Macartney himself can be reached through the Embassy link, and we don't normally link countries (China, UK) anyway. EEng (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Is there anything that needs to be done to get the ALT accepted as the hook? (This is my first DYK nom, so I'm not too familiar with how it all works yet.) Thanks. --Difference engine (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm paging the reviewer (Rcsprinter123) to OK ALT1. EEng (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

ALT1 looks good. Rcsprinter¹²³ (vent) @ 16:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Did anyone check this for close paraphrasing? Yoninah (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

In other words, "Has someone looked in this for nearly-same wording?" EEng (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

His was fine and yours doesn't make sense — LlywelynII 03:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I was closely paraphrasing. EEng (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Does Earwig's tool check for duplication from other Wiki articles via Google? or does it just use the sources provided? In any case, right now it's just pulling a false positive and looks fine. — LlywelynII 03:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It made sense but you're right that it could have been phrased better, especially since a formal embassy is both intended and the name of the relevant article. — LlywelynII 03:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: If you're going to be creating/expanding Chinese articles, thanks! but I'll put in a request that you not use {{zh}}, but stick with (better) {{lang-zh}} or (best) {{Chinese}}. God knows why, but the template currently being used formats "simplified Chinese", "traditional Chinese", and "pinyin" to look like three separate languages each on equal footing with Manchu which (of course) is insane. The maintainers don't seem interested in addressing the problem, so just avoid it if you can. — LlywelynII 03:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind for the future. --Difference engine (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Also, kindly remember to use {{linktext}} or [[wikt:xyz|]] links to the characters involved for terms. (Not usually all that helpful for people's names, granted.) — LlywelynII 03:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yoninah, has your query on close paraphrasing been adequately answered at this point? As far as I can tell, that's the only issue mentioned as holding back this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool is showing no copyvios, so if that's the only thing holding back this nomination, we can go ahead. The offline hook ref is AGF and cited inline. Rest of review per User talk:Rcsprinter123. ALT1 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)