Talk:Jin–Song wars/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 07:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklinks reports all external links are in order. (no action required)
There are three disambiguation links in the article right now: Jin Dynasty, Northern China, and Khitan. Please point those to appropriate articles instead.
- Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are several duplicate links in the article, please remove them per WP:OVERLINK. Those are: Kaifeng, Sixteen Prefectures, Emperor Huizong of Song, Huai River, Yellow River, and Emperor Hailingwang of Jin.
- Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several images are missing United States PD license tags (although PD obviously applies due to the age). Please add appropriate tags at image description pages at the Commons. Those images are: Chinese Fire Lance with Pellets.JPG, Songgaozong.jpg, and Huizong.jpg.
Several images appear to have no sourcing indicated. Those are: Huizong.jpg, Sung Dynasty 1141.png, and China 11a.jpg. I assume that the artwork and the maps appear in some book or website - that info should be provided as sourcing.
- Huizong.jpg is now fixed. Sung Dynasty 1141.png and China 11a.jpg were created by Wikipedians.--Typing General (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, the problem with the two maps (Sung Dynasty 1141.png and China 11a.jpg) is that the image descriptions do not say what is the source of information used to create the maps. It could be a description, a photo of another map or a drawing... anything of the sort really. In case of China 11a.jpg, the "source" parameter specifies "Released under the GNU FDL" which is no info on sourcing (on licencing). The other file's "source" parameter stands as "Own work" which is fine, but says nothing on actual source of the info. The question is: How can a reader verify that the maps are based on reliable information? I assume the maps are correct, but is there a book passage somewhere or website that can verify this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I went through the pass contributions of the two map creators and I've found the sources for both maps.--Typing General (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore on the images. It is no dealbreaker, but I would suggest using an image in the infobox as a general reference for casual readers. I think Sung Dynasty 1141.png map would fit there nicely (once sourced) - but as I already stated, this is optional.
- Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prose referencing appears to be in order.
As an exception to the overall fine referencing work, there are two image captions which are not supported by referenced prose, therefore they need inline citations themselves. Those are: (1) Battle of Zhuxianzhen near Kaifeng in Henan where Yue Fei defeated the Jin army in 1140. Painting on the Long Corridor of the Summer Palace in Beijing. - how can a reader verify that Yue Fei defeated Jin army in the particular battle in 1140 and that the painting is located where the caption claims it is? and (2) A fire lance, shown in the Ming Dynasty Huolongjing, firing pellets as projectiles. - how can a reader verify that the fire lance fired pellets?
- Now fixed. The second caption has a new citation and the description about the battle without a source in the first caption has been removed.--Typing General (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:YEAR, year ranges like 1211-1212 should be presented as 1211–12 (using endash and only the last two year digits provided both years fall into the same century).
- Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:ENDASH, Song-Jin treaties should employ an endash: Song–Jin treaties.
- Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to employ two different date formats: mdy such as "January 27, 1126" and dmy such as "31 January 1126". Please select one and apply it consistently throughout.
- Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should "A second expedition that tried to rescue..." be changed to "The second expedition that tried to rescue..." or "An additional expedition that tried to rescue..." perhaps?
- Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Han Chinese and Tael should be linked at the first instance of the term. I'd also pipe link the word "sinicized" to Sinicization article.
- Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know if the state of Qi is notable on its own to warrant an article at some point? If so, I'd redlink the first instance of the name.
- Redlinked.--Typing General (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In "The peace that was cemented..." the word "cemented" seems out of place. Would you consider "ensured" or "negotiated" instead?
- Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Holcombe reference produces an error message since it lacks url= parameter even though it has an "accessdate=" parameter in. I suggest removing the latter as not really necessary.
- Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article, I enjoyed reading it. There are only a few things to address before the GAN can be passed. I also made a few tweaks to the prose, please review those.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All clear now. Passing nom. Great work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]