Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stroke order/archive1

Stroke order

A shortish yet complete article on an unusual and interesting topic. Largely a self-nom. Well illustrated, well laid out, and well written (if I may say so). One potential objection may be that there are only three references, but they are well-known and highly respected sources, and much of the information presented in the article is common knowledge (to those who are familiar with Chinese characters). Exploding Boy 21:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object, information is laid out nicely, but the article is just too short, IMHO. Phoenix2 22:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Shortness is not really a valid objection in this case. If you'll take a look at Wikipedia:What is a featured article, point 2 states that "[a featured article should cover] the topic in its entirety, and . . . not neglect any major facts or details," while point 5 states that "[a featured article] should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." This article both covers the topic in its entirety and is of appropriate length for the subject matter. In other words, the questions really are "is the subject of sufficient importance to be covered in some detail" and "does the article cover the subject in sufficient detail". The answer to both is yes. Exploding Boy 22:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Object How did the stroking come to be? What was the previous writing system before it and what advantages did it have over it? Just not comprehensive enough, unfortunately. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object slightly - images are great but badly laid out, fix that and maybe pad it out a bit, and it'll be great imo --PopUpPirate 22:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Quite well written, although I'll suggest a few minor changes to the language when the article has been extended. Tony 01:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. This is not comprehensive. What about - comparison with other systems of writing? Is standard stroke order unheard of elsewhere? I seem to recall stroke order is used in various input methods for CJK. Additionally, the lead section should be a summary of the article, not what it is at present. Morwen - Talk 08:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Not comprehensive. To the authors'/collaborators' credit however, I must say the illustrations in the article are really great. Phils 11:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't say I'm not disappointed, but (and this comment isn't just sour grapes) I disagree with the comments posted, and it seems to me that some voters are not thoroughly reading articles before voting on them. But anyway. Another time. Exploding Boy 02:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The examples in the Stroke order rules section would be much clearer if they showed each stroke being added in order (presumably only possible with an image). The right uptick in the Types of strokes section doesn't show what the stroke looks like. How do the rules make writing easier? Why is stroke order of more importance is brush-writing (presumably as opposed to pen writing)? Mark1 05:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And what about Chinese character? Turning the focus on the top-level article instead of a very specific sub-article would be far more enlightening to those who want to learn about Chinese characters. I might add that it barely mentions stroke order and does so in the rather oddly named section "Orthography". / Peter ^Isotalo 06:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Excuse me for butting in here, since I'm not an experienced reviewer of Wikipedia articles, I won't venture an opinion on whether this article is suitable or not, but since one of the criteria mentioned is not being part of an ongoing edit war, and since the other reviewers don't know who User:Exploding Boy is, I'd like to point out that my experience is that any and every article edited by User:Exploding Boy is part of an ongoing edit war. I've detailed my complaints at the talk page of the stroke order article. --DannyWilde 03:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is, of course, both inappropriate for discussion here and absolute nonsense. As can be plainly seen, the recent issue at Stroke order seems to have stemmed from a misunderstanding. At any rate, it's a moot point since the article has be soundly rejected as an FA candidate and since I've agreed to work on it further and have in fact actively solicited input from DannyWilde. This proposal should really be retired from voting, since it's not going to go anywhere from here anyway. Exploding Boy 06:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object: Right now, the article is missing important aspects: for example, what is the correct stroke direction? This is no trivial desicion, as for example the ノ in 文: should it be written from bottom left to top right, or from top right to bottom left? My lecturer told me it should be from bottom left to top right, yet the stroke is confusingly called Right diagonal stroke in the article. Another objection is the given Dots and minor strokes last rule next to the stroke order image of 火, which shows the dots written as first. Exceptions are bad for an example. --Abdull 15:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]