This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
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 pageorWikipedia 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.
... that Juren was a rank awarded in imperial China for those who passed the provincial level of the civil examination system?[1]
ALT1:... that in 1630, less than 2.6% of 49,200 or so juren candidates was awarded that rank? Source: WP:AGF; someone with access should check ch. 3, "Circulation of Ming-Qing Elites" in Elman 2013
ALT2:... that in 1630, less than 3% of candidates were awarded the rank of juren, the second highest civil rank in imperial China? Source: "provincial examinations 'gold went to the provincial graduate [juren], and [only] silver to the palace graduate [jinshi],' because the competition was much keener in provinces. By 1630, about 49,200 candidates empire-wide, 45 percent less than in the 'High Qing,' triennially competed for 1,278 provincial degrees. Only 2.6 percent would succeed" Elman, 2013 and Bai & Jia, 2016, Figure 1, p. 683
@Qwj5377: I understand that you are a relatively new user so welcome and thanks for contributing. This is not a review but just a comment. Please provide a hook for this article per WP:DYKHOOK. This can be an interesting fact from this article (supported by a reference) that would encourage the reader to want to read more by clicking. Cowlibob (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Cowlibob: Thank you so much for this! I'm not too sure I've done the template right. Could you have a look now? Let me know if I still am missing something. Thank you! Qwj5377 (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
Interesting: - I prefer ALT1 and have suggested a slightly different wording in ALT2
QPQ: None required.
Overall: I confirm that the Elman, 2013 citation is accurate as is Bai & Jia, 2016. QPQ not needed -- new user. Qwj5377 This looks good to me with ALT2 as the preferred hook. QuakerSquirrel (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I'm a uni student working on this article and I've recently made some major additions. Could someone please read over my additions and give some feedback? I would also like to submit this article for reassessment. Help on that process would be appreciated. Thank you! Qwj5377 (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
The infobox was confusing; thanks for pointing this out. I've corrected it to show simplified Chinese and traditional Chinese, which indeed are both Chinese. (They're the two main versions of the Chinese writing system.) —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 09:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
- I prefer ALT1 and have suggested a slightly different wording in ALT2
I confirm that the Elman, 2013 citation is accurate as is Bai & Jia, 2016. QPQ not needed -- new user. Qwj5377 This looks good to me with ALT2 as the preferred hook. QuakerSquirrel (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
