![]() | Chenqiao mutiny has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 29, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lyn1644 ( talk) 23:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Lyn1644 ( talk · contribs) 06:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Nominator: Lyn1644 ( talk · contribs) 06:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Kusma ( talk · contribs) 15:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Adding this one to my list of things to review (I know far too little about pre-Qing dynasty Chinese history). —
Kusma (
talk)
15:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I will comment on anything I notice, but not all of my comments will be strictly related to the GA criteria, so not everything needs to be actioned. Feel free to push back if you think I am asking too much, and please tell me when I am wrong.
More later! — Kusma ( talk) 15:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
First read through done! Generally a quite nice article, I have learned something interesting that I did not know before and feel informed about the beginnings of the Song dynasty now. I am a bit concerned about the reliance on Hung 2014; I have only looked at snippets (so I may be wrong), but that book seems to me to mostly paraphrase Song dynasty era texts and present their stories as historical facts, quite a contrast to the much more cautious approach used in the Cambridge History of China. I think ideally you would tell all these stories here with attribution to whatever thousand year old text they are from, unless modern day historians generally agree that they represent historical facts. — Kusma ( talk) 21:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Numbering from special:permanentlink/1231054153. A few random checks for source-to-text faithfulness and close paraphrasing.
The sources are generally good (with question marks on Hung 2014); while the Cambridge History of China is excellent, a little bit more variety would be a plus, but is not needed for GA status.
Good Article review progress box
|
Done reviewing. @ Lyn1644, thank you for this nice article! There are a few suggestions for improvement; I hope I am not asking for anything impossible (or anything that would make the article worse). — Kusma ( talk) 09:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
You have addressed my points and I am fairly happy with the changes to the text, especially with the added attribution. Further minor comments:
I am not so happy about the way you have reformatted the sources. That you needlessly mix ref tags and sfn is ugly, but OK by the Good Article criteria, so I can't complain about this. But it is very sad that you have made the citations so imprecise ("pp. 526–664" is an extremely wide range). Can you add the page numbers back in at least? Ideally just move all of the chapter refs to the Books section (or a new "Book chapters" section) and go back to {{
sfn}}
. —
Kusma (
talk)
16:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Chenqiao mutiny has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 29, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lyn1644 ( talk) 23:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Lyn1644 ( talk · contribs) 06:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Nominator: Lyn1644 ( talk · contribs) 06:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Kusma ( talk · contribs) 15:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Adding this one to my list of things to review (I know far too little about pre-Qing dynasty Chinese history). —
Kusma (
talk)
15:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I will comment on anything I notice, but not all of my comments will be strictly related to the GA criteria, so not everything needs to be actioned. Feel free to push back if you think I am asking too much, and please tell me when I am wrong.
More later! — Kusma ( talk) 15:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
First read through done! Generally a quite nice article, I have learned something interesting that I did not know before and feel informed about the beginnings of the Song dynasty now. I am a bit concerned about the reliance on Hung 2014; I have only looked at snippets (so I may be wrong), but that book seems to me to mostly paraphrase Song dynasty era texts and present their stories as historical facts, quite a contrast to the much more cautious approach used in the Cambridge History of China. I think ideally you would tell all these stories here with attribution to whatever thousand year old text they are from, unless modern day historians generally agree that they represent historical facts. — Kusma ( talk) 21:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Numbering from special:permanentlink/1231054153. A few random checks for source-to-text faithfulness and close paraphrasing.
The sources are generally good (with question marks on Hung 2014); while the Cambridge History of China is excellent, a little bit more variety would be a plus, but is not needed for GA status.
Good Article review progress box
|
Done reviewing. @ Lyn1644, thank you for this nice article! There are a few suggestions for improvement; I hope I am not asking for anything impossible (or anything that would make the article worse). — Kusma ( talk) 09:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
You have addressed my points and I am fairly happy with the changes to the text, especially with the added attribution. Further minor comments:
I am not so happy about the way you have reformatted the sources. That you needlessly mix ref tags and sfn is ugly, but OK by the Good Article criteria, so I can't complain about this. But it is very sad that you have made the citations so imprecise ("pp. 526–664" is an extremely wide range). Can you add the page numbers back in at least? Ideally just move all of the chapter refs to the Books section (or a new "Book chapters" section) and go back to {{
sfn}}
. —
Kusma (
talk)
16:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)