Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Du Fu

Du Fu

Self-nom. One of the world's great poets. Markalexander100 07:18, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Support. --Shibboleth 19:42, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support, brilliant article. --Alxt 19:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• "Tu Fu" is more common: [1] --Jiang 21:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • This objection is unactionable. If we moved the article to Tu Fu, others may well object that Wade-Giles is not "standard" enough. The googlefight is a dead heat: a 7% difference in usage doesn't amount to a clear victory for "Tu Fu", and there are counterarguments in favor of "Du Fu". Anyway, it's a really minor point, because there is a redirect. This well-written article shouldn't be held up over petty romanization disputes. --Shibboleth 21:47, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I didn't object. I'm just noting a fact. Don't expect the article to stay where it is on that argument alone though. --Jiang 03:04, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • "Tu" may be minimally more common on the Internet (although searching for each term individually gives "about 10,500" for each, and not all the hits for "Tu Fu" or "Du Fu" refer to our man); but "Du" is more common in current sinological (is that a word?) work, and the balance is shifting towards "Du". Markalexander100 04:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Would it be possible to include information about his calligraphy? Since handwriting is so valued in Chinese culture I think it might be appropriate. I do not object to this article, in fact I like it a lot, I just think it could be a bit more complete. -Eudyptes 02:49 29 Aug 2004
  • I'm fairly sure that we know nothing about his own calligraphy, even in copies. I've added a sample of someone else's calligraphy of one of his poems, but I think that's all we can do. Markalexander100 04:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Good, then. Thanks. Eudyptes 15:41 29 Aug 2004 UTC
• Object - Nice article, but it needs a ==References== section. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. --mav
  • I've renamed "Further reading" as "References"- I hope that helps. Markalexander100 03:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Were each of those listed items used as references? --mav
      • Yes. I've always used "Further reading" as a synonym for "References", firstly because I wouldn't direct readers to something I haven't read, and secondly because "References" usually translates as "don't bother to read". But I'll use the latter if it's preferred. Markalexander100 05:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • "Further reading" would have been a useful category at Wikipedia. I used it when I arrived but was told not to. Wetman 05:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great name! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 16:57, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Pedro 19:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Marlowe 19:32, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Objection: The paragraphs of the lead section are rather short (especially the first); they should either be extended or merged together. There are several short paragraphs in the article itself, as well (seven with one or two sentences each). -- Emsworth 00:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of the lead is short for a very good reason: it allows readers who don't want to wade through all the Gongbus and Shaolins (which are boring but necessary) to skip them and start on the real article. The other paragraphs of the lead are three and two sentences respectively, but the last sentence of the two sentence paragraph is a long one. And as for the short paragraphs in the article: well, sometimes paragraphs are short. I've expanded a couple slightly, but the others contain as much information on the topic as is known. Extending those paragraphs would make the article worse by conflating unrelated information or by introducing useless verbiage. And there's nothing in the MoS against short paras. Markalexander100 00:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support: good article on a really important figure. What more can you ask? Bmills 13:56, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)