A fact from Far West (Taixi) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 April 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that people in China and Japan called Europe the Far West?
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
In research, you could probably find more appropriate images. The satellite image of Europe is not helpful at all.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
@Khanate General: I'm very sorry, but I don't think this will pass. If you tell me to, I can just fail it now for you. Anyways, here are some comments: Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 00:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The naming conventions of this page seem to be wrong--look at the other pages on Chinese exonyms.
I mean by using both the English name and the Chinese name. Other Chinese exonyms do not have such a thing. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 15:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article's lead does not summarize key aspects of its contents.
Fixed.
There's a lot of scope problems here--while the Far East article is far from perfect, its scope is a lot better than this. What was its impact? What was its cultural meaning? Did any other countries use it? Did it last into modern times?
The first two sentences of the China part could be expanded vastly. That's a lot of etymological change that you put without explaining much.
That's all that is written in the source: It is worth noting that, from the earlier printed texts, Ricci seems to have invented the term taixi (Far West) as a back-formation from the Eurocentric notion of the Far East, not knowing that the term was already in use for an area in the south of Inner Mongolia and occasionally also for parts of India.
Much of this article is just a list of various terms that were coined in expansion from the "Far West" designation.
Again, it's hard to write a GA on a particular term, but it's only from the point of view of a few individuals. There's not really a global sense of the term and its impact--I'm sorry, but the phrase appears to be barely notable on its own. Another article I reviewed recently, Jharokha Darshan, gives a much better sense of the broader historical context. When a lot of the terms are listed, it's unclear why they are necessary, especially because each of them seems to have been used in one source.
"The term taixi was still used in the late 19th and early 20th centuries." Source? Also, expand.
"The term Far West was later expanded to include the United States" Is this something that was generally done or are you just extrapolating from the writings of this one person?
"Western influence also introduced the Japanese to the geographical nomenclature of Europe, which divided the world into Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas. There were some Japanese intellectuals that opposed adopting the Western notion of Asia, and instead advocated retaining the geographical terminology borrowed earlier from China." This appears to be unsourced.
The source is Tsai. Tsai uses Aizawa Seishisai as an example of a Japanese intellectual who opposed the Western idea of Asia and advocated using tradition East Asian geographical terminology, i.e. dividing the outside world into Western Barbarians, Northern Barbarians, Southern Barbarians, the Far West, and the Wild West.
@Khanate General: I'm sorry, but it's been seven days, and I am not satisfied with the changes made. I might have given you a couple more had you asked or were contributing fairly regularly, but that doesn't appear to be so. I still feel the article suffers from scope problems--at probably roughly 5K of readable prose and considering there's probably a lot of literature to look over, the scope problems are vast. It's a fine article, but it's not a GA. It might have enough potential, but possibly not. Also, you definitely need to consider more viewpoints on the term as well as clean up a couple of the OR things I mentioned in my review. Thank you. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 19:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
b (citations to reliable sources): 
b (focused): 
