Talk:Learning the walk of Handan

Peer review

Learning the walk of Handan

Hi Everyone, I've listed this article for peer review because the last time it has been reviewed it was rated Start-class and I tried to improve it as much as I could but honestly I have kind of run out of ideas for improvements so I would very much appreciate it if someone could take a look at it! Thanks, Orlandov123 (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! This is 16dvnk. This is my first peer review, and please forgive me if I make any mistakes. I am happy to get started and thank you for your understanding. I have found multiple issues:

1. Some minor WP:MOS issues like "A bridge in Handan, referred to as Xuebu Bridge (学步桥, literally "Learning to Walk Bridge"), commemorates the fable and serves as a local cultural landmark[9]" or "The story's reference to Yan and Handan highlights the cultural diversity of the time and reflects Daoist skepticism about abandoning local tradition in favor of external models[5]" which should be corrected to ".... external models.[5]" etc. I have already fixed those for you.

2. Citations. After a scan, all sources are online and not dead, which is a good thing. However, there are some minor wording issues that I afraid might border on WP:NPOV, including editorial phrasing ('notably revitalized', 'strategically deployed') and a weasel word ('notably'). In the sources, there are no mention of these words like "notably". Again, this is my first review, so maybe I am too sensitive, but I feel like that is an issue. Additionally, the lead section contains an unsourced generalization ('The idiom has been used throughout Chinese history and continues to appear in contemporary political discourse, particularly in discussions of cultural identity and the adoption of foreign practices or ideologies. Most scholarly discussion of the idiom focuses on its roots in Daoist philosophy and its later use in Chinese political and cultural contexts.') that might constitute original research. (refer to WP:NOR) Improving that would help boost the article's rating.

3. Weighting issues. The idiom is mostly about the 7 warring states. However, I have found that the political usage section may also give undue weight relative to the origin section, and the article seems too focused on Xi Jinping instead of the actual origins. Instead, the political side should be weighted lower, and the historical sections should be weighted more. "Commemoration A bridge in Handan, referred to as Xuebu Bridge (学步桥, literally "Learning to Walk Bridge"), commemorates the fable and serves as a local cultural landmark." This section should be expanded, as currently it is very short. The article focuses too much on one Xi statement and makes it a "socialist statement". Perhaps you can find more sources stating that, or weigh Xi less in the article, as the MC should be Handan instead of Xi.

4. There should be sources where brings some things together (like how Xi or Deng or modern presidents from communist states other than Xi) who use this and give modern interpretations, or even how the modern interpretation can cross over to the Seven Warring States. This will significantly improve your article and make it not border on WP:NOR.

5. The lead section does not adequately sum up the article. There is no mention of Xi or its socialist uses, nor any mention to the Xuebu Bridge or its significance. I put this last as if you fix the above items first, the lead section can be fixed easier as it is a summary of the article.

I hope that my advice has been useful. Again, I may make mistakes as I actually have less article creating experience than you, and this is my first time reviewing someone. Please let me know if I made a mistake. Thank you very much! 16dvnk (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much @16dvnk for your extensive review and advice! I will gladly go through your points and revise the article correspondingly; I appreciate your time and effort a lot!

~~~ Orlandov123 (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your understanding! Please note that there is no time limit to your edits, but preferably, a good time limit would be like WP:GAN, where initial fixes last for 7 days (and up to 14 days if needed). This de facto rule is the one I prefer (and plus I may be busy soon), and 1-2 weeks should be enough to address my points. However, please do not rush, and please take your time if needed. Thank you for your understanding. I appreciate your efforts. 16dvnk (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Orlandov123 I have run a scan on copyvio and the AI detector GPTZero (the ones GA uses to scan articles) and have found a 40% match of copyvio. However, that is not the main problem since it flagged the translated raw text, and clearly that does not constitute as a violation of copyright. The much more glaring issue is that GPTZero flagged it as 100% AI. While I promote AI, the unfortunate bad thing is that Wikipedia prohibits it. (see WP:LLM and WP:AI) This is also not an accusation that you used AI, since GPTZero is notably unreliable for the absolute latest models like Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview or Claude Opus 4.8, but the issue is that other wikipedians would be extremely critical of this, and there will be 0 chance of a GA nomination or even a B as this is the first thing they check. Hence, the unfortunate conclusion is that there is another thing to work on is to make the article sound more encyclopedic and check for hallucinations in sources. This may or may not be your fault, and I apologize for this inconvenience, but we MUST fix the wording of the article as well. Thank you very much, and I will keep in touch with you for any other additional issues. 16dvnk (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Orlandov123 Thank you very much for your updates. However, I have found multiple issues:

1. AI: The AI issue was not addressed in your subsequent edits. We need to fix the tone. However, I have fixed this for you. Please do NOT use Artificial Intelligence (or use better prompt engineering) (which is not recommended) for Wikipedia if you have done so. Once again, this is NOT an accusation, but the "unpaired sources" along with the "AI tone" seems very suspicious. I have fixed this and GPTZero has shown an 81% human rating. However, the thing Wikipedia IS concerned about (sourcing) has not been fixed yet.
2. Sourcing: 1. It has a high proportion of primary sources, which is strictly prohibited. (as per WP:V) It also has a mix of high-quality sources, but those are mostly not paired to their actual claims "Within its Daoist context, the story has been interpreted as a critique of artificiality, superficiality, and the abandonment of one's innate nature (性) or original way (故行) in pursuit of externally imposed or admired forms." where [1] is just a dictionary explanation of the idiom and in "The young man's failure is a consequence of rejecting his ziran (自然), a central Daoist concept signifying naturalness, spontaneity, and "that which is so of itself.[7]", where [7] does not contain the "that which is so of itself" quote. There are multiple instances of "good source but not applicable", which is an issue. 2. "In the contemporary era, the idiom has been used in Chinese political discourse, notably by General Secretary Xi Jinping and former Chairman of the Central Military Commission Deng Xiaoping. It is used to caution against the uncritical adoption of foreign models of development." However, this borders on WP:SYNTH which shows that there must be a bridging source between [2] and [3], but here it is presented as 2 sources but with no bridge. I am certain that there may be some research bringing all of these 2 things together. There may/may not be other instances that I have not quoted here. 3. I have removed irrelevant sources and replaced them with {{citation needed}} markers. I have also removed glaringly unsupported statements. Please update them accordingly.
3. WP:OR: Once again, around 40% of the article is about Xi and Deng, except as a Hong Konger I am pretty certain that it is not about "socialist values". Furthermore, the source you have cited is a Chinese Media primary source which is not a high-quality source (WP:RS/PS) and it there is no secondary report (at least cited on this article) that shows the phrase has such a conventional meaning. Either i .) reduce the weighting OR ii.) Provide peer reviewed papers/ reliable sources which suggest that the phrase has such a significant meaning.
4. The AI issue has been resolved, so I can start to review based on the C/B class criteria. Let me start with the C Class first: 1. "The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow." 1. It does cite more than one reliable source ("Hundred Schools of Thought (百家争鸣) | Springer Nature Link"), and it is better developed than Start-Class. Basic criteria passed. 2. Description "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study." So far, this has entertained me, but this does not provide a complete picture for "even a moderately detailed study" because of the WP:OR problems and WP:Undue Weight problems. However, the background and the implications are there, so it should be fine. 3. Fails 1 or more criteria of B: "
   1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional." Failed. Some sources are not reliable, and some places are not strong enough.
   2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. It passes this, but the weight is undue.
   3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. It barely passes, but the lead is not polished. We can work on that. I would say pass, but most likely it is a fail to others.
   4. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. Pass. Pictures are suitable and there is no need for an infobox.
   5. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. I would say fail. It uses words like "ziran" etc etc which is not understandable to others. This is the English Wikipedia, so others will not understand the terms. Furthermore, there is no explanation for some of those words." So as you can see, it fails 3/5 of the B tier criteria, but I believe we can improve this. 1 criteria is close, and 2 others are not as much of a pain as it seems.
5. Conclusion:

Therefore, it seems like this article has passed the C-criteria. This is an improvement, and your contribution is what makes this possible. A B tier is possible if we work harder, and I believe we can do it. Please address these issues above. Thank you very very very much for your attention.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Orlandov123 The article name should be Learning the walk of Handan as per WP:AT. Moved for you! 16dvnk (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Orlandov123 It seems like a month has passed with no significant improvement. Is there anything you need help? Once again, there is no rush. Please let me know if you need further guidance.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

References