Talk:Shunzhi Emperor/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 04:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

GAN Quicksheet 1.23 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments: Well... umm... this is going to be an FA. It's very clearly near that level right now. Down to the details then...

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright: Needs work

Initial concerns (all addressed)

Nurhaci is referenced in the very first paragraph as if he was already well known to the reader. Please add a few words clarifying who Nurhaci was. You're right! Addressed here. Consider using the term "maternal half-brothers" instead of "uterine brothers". When there are two equally accurate methods of describing something, it is better to use the choice that is more accessible to a general audience. I now realize that "uterine brother" is misleading, because it implies the three princes only shared the same mother. Actually they were all sons of Nurhaci from the same mother, which makes both "uterine brothers" and "maternal half brothers" wrong. I've replaced with "brothers" for now.[1] In describing Hong Chengchou and Fan Wencheng, does one of the sources use the terminology "two most illustrious", or is this your conclusion? If it's sourced, there's no need for further action. If it's not sourced, please use language that can be cited. Let me check my sources... Ok, this claim is based on my reading of Wakeman (The Great Enterprise, 1985), who has convinced me that Fan and Hong played a crucial role in devising a plan for the Qing conquest of China. They were also extremely influential after 1644. But "illustrious" still risks sounding like a peacock word, so I'm now calling them "two of Dorgon's most prominent Chinese advisors."[2] This corresponds to the account given in Wakeman without using a superlative. In the line "A formal ritual of enthronement for Fulin was held on 8 November, during which the merits of Dorgon as regent were compared to those of the Duke of Zhou." - who was doing the comparing? I've clarified and further improved the sentence to reflect your point.[3] Thanks! Do you think that Dai Yingcong is notable enough of a scholar to have an article? If so, I'd give him a (red)link. If not, I personally wouldn't use the phrase "Historian Dai Yingcong has called Dorgon "the mastermind of the Qing conquest."", but technically it's fine either way, so if you want to leave it in, leave it in. It's true that Dai Yingcong is not notable enough to get her own wiki, but I thought her sentence made a good opening for a section that described Qing military success under Dorgon. I integrated two characterizations of Dorgon (hers and Wakeman's) into the text to reassure readers that these views do not represent a minority POV.[4] Let me know if you find this acceptable. The same goes for the quote by Morris Rossabi in the section "The Northwest". Done by rephrasing.[5] The second sentence in the "The conquest of China" section ("Under his reign, the Qing subdued the capital area, received the capitulation of Shandong local elites and officials, and conquered Shanxi and Shaanxi, then turned their eyes to Jiangnan as they were also pursuing the last remnants of regimes established by Li Zicheng (killed in 1645) and Zhang Xianzhong (Chengdu taken in early 1647).") is rather long and unruly. It could use being broken up into two or three separate sentences. Indeed. Done here. At the beginning of the "Transition and personal rule (1651–1661)" section, it is worth reiterating the date and nature of Dorgon's death before going straight into the impact of that death. Good point! Done here.

• Can you please add a word clarifying what type of rich you mean when referring to "the rich region of Jiangnan" (i.e. is it economically rich, agriculturally rich, etc.)

Sure! I replaced "rich region" with "rich commercial and agricultural region."[6]

b. MoS compliance: Acceptable

• Sure... and I totally checked that before marking it as fine...

2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable

a. provides references: Acceptable

b. proper citation use: Acceptable

c. no original research: Question Resolved

• Assuming that the "two most illustrious" is from a source, this section is fine too.

3. Broad in coverage:

a. covers main aspects: Acceptable

b. focused/on topic: Needs work

• I'm a bit concerned that you go into too much detail on the military campaigns that happened under Dorgon. I'm willing to be swayed on the matter though, if you can make a good case for it.

Ok, this is the toughest point to defend, because this section is indeed a little long. But here's my angle. First, the main events of the Dorgon regency were military campaigns, so I think they deserve detailed treatment. Second, this content can be found nowhere else on Wikipedia. Third, almost no printed sources (that is, English-language reliable sources on this period) give this kind of coverage, because they're usually either very concise (Jonathan Spence's Search for Modern China, Frederick Mote's Imperial China, 900-1800) or extremely long (Lynn Struve's book on the Southern Ming, or Frederic Wakeman's Great Enterprise). Summarizing all the main campaigns in a single page is a very useful contribution.

Let's look at this long section in detail. Devoting one paragraph each to Li Zicheng (nemesis of the Ming) and Zhang Xianzhong (the "butcher of Sichuan") doesn't seem excessive. The Jiangnan section is longer, but it discusses major events like the birth of the Southern Ming, the Yangzhou massacre, and the "haircutting command," the last two of which had repercussions into the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (as the two images illustrate). I slightly simplified the prose and removed a few details.[7] The Southern Ming section, though, is too long, so I cut it from four to three paragraphs.[8][9][10] I simply moved the extraneous details to the undeveloped Southern Ming. Let me know what you think! Madalibi (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

4. Neutral: Section acceptable

5. Stable: Section acceptable

6. Image use: Section acceptable

a. license/tagging correct: Needs work Resolved

• File:ManZhow 8Flag White.jpg - this file has no source information. Please supply a filled out Template:Information template for this image, replace the image, or remove it. Technically I should have placed it up for deletion on sight, but I won't do that while the GA is active.

I'm not savvy with images, so I replaced all four images with new ones. Replaced this one with a portrait of Shunzhi's father Hong Taiji.[11]

• File:Shanhaiguan.gif - same as above.

Replaced with a portrait of Hong Chengchou, an important Chinese advisor to Dorgon.[12]

• File:Long-wu.jpg - the source on this file isn't valid. Please fix this, replace the image, or remove it.

I simply removed this one and moved the remaining images around to fill the void.[13]

• File:The Shunzhi Emperor.PNG - the source is invalid (it links to a search engine page, not the page hosting the image). Please give the direct source and supply a filled out Template:Information template for this image, replace the image, or remove it.

Replaced with a painting of birds by a renowned painter who happened to be distantly related to the Ming imperial household.[14]

b. relevant/properly captioned: Needs work Resolved

• Captions that are not full sentences (such as the ones for the first two images in the "Transition and personal rule (1651–1661)" section) should not end in periods/

Done, though one of these two images has now been removed.[15]

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:

a. images that should have alt texts have them: Needs work

• This isn't a requirement, officially, for GA or FA status. It is, however, good practice for accessibility reasons.

Ok, I'm starting to work on this. This is the first time I write alt text, so just to get an idea: would you advise going into as much detail as the alt text of Song dynasty, or would you recommend something shorter?

[Written several hours later than the paragraph above.] Ok, I'm done! This took longer than I thought, but I tried to give enough detail to help readers imagine what the image is actually showing. Let me know if the level of detail is good as it is or if it should be either simplified or enhanced. Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

b. general catch all and aesthetics: Acceptable

Comments after the initial review:

I want to make sure that it's clear that I think very highly of this piece of work. I do believe that Featured status is within sight here.

That being said, please be cognizant of your word choice. I read and write at a graduate to postgraduate level. Words like extirpate don't give me any pause, and I'm quite used to reading and digesting high level academic papers written with specific discourse communities in mind. Among consumers of Wikipedia's content, however, I'm in a distinct minority. I'm not saying that you should dumb anything down, but I am saying that when given the choice between 'extirpate' and 'root out' or between 'uterine brothers' and 'maternal half-brothers', choose the one that more people are going to understand without having to google.

Anyways, I look forward to working with you on getting everything cleared up. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Closing comments:

I'm not going to go through and change all the icons again. Everything has been fixed up to a degree that I feel comfortable rating this a GA. It's a spectacular piece of work, and I look forward to the FAC that I see in its near future.

PROMOTED Sven Manguard Wha? 15:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)