Talk:Juren

First-degree scholar listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect First-degree scholar. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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 Desertarun (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... 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

Created/expanded by Qwj5377 (talk). Self-nominated at 06:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC).

• @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)

• @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)

• Not a review, either; just wanted to suggest another hook. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• 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)

Help with editing the article

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)

What is Chinese?

Under the picture in the upper right corner is the caption -

Chinese 举人 Traditional Chinese 舉人 Simplified Chinese 举人

What makes Chinese 举人 different from the other two, especially fron Chinese 举人? 2001:9E8:256:A200:20D9:3A74:86CB:E6A1 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

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)