Talk:The Mongol Khan

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dylan620 talk 21:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that The Mongol Khan launched an "attack on the West" in November 2023? Source: Mesure, Susie (18 November 2023). "The West End's controversial new musical – that's already been shut down in China". The Telegraph. Retrieved 19 November 2023.
  • ALT1: ... that The Mongol Khan was sabotaged by Chinese authorities? Source: Lloyd Parry, Richard (3 October 2023). "Mongol play bound for West End is banned in China". The Times. Retrieved 22 November 2023.
  • ALT2: ... that although only one of them was fluent in English, the cast of The Mongol Khan learned their entire script in that language before the play's West End run? Source: Wilkinson, Chiara (2 November 2023). "Behind the scenes of The Mongol Khan: the epic Mongolian tragedy set to shake up the West End". www.timeout.com/. Time Out. Retrieved 19 November 2023.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Fyodor Basmanov
  • Comment: A couple of hooks playing on the somewhat-unclear title, and a less eggy one just in case.

Created by AirshipJungleman29 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Mongol Khan; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Surprised that no one has reviewed this until today. New enough (created on Nov 19, nominated on Nov 22), long enough, sourced, no copy-vio (earwig gives 8.3% mainly on the name of the play), presentable (GA), hooks are cited (Telegraph, Times articles have paywall so AGF).

Concerns about ALT2 (resolved)

I am not sure about ALT2. It feels to me that it is implying that the play is performed at West End in English, which is uhm... barely the case. Let's have a look at the source more closely: I watch the one-hundred-and-fifty-first run of the show at the Mongolian State Academic Theatre: a red-painted building not far from Ulaanbaatar’s central square, built by the Soviets in 1960. This production is in English, with an almost-perfect translation of the Mongolian script: no easy feat to pull off when only one cast member speaks the language fluently. At the Coliseum in November, though, most of the shows will be in Mongolian, with English surtitles. Sure, "most of the shows will be in Mongolian" at the West End, which implies that some of the shows will be in English. Still, I would say something like ALT2a ... that although only one of them was fluent in English, the cast of The Mongol Khan learned their entire script in that language for the play's performance in Mongolia?"

QPQ confirmed and the hooks are interesting. @AirshipJungleman29, let's discuss about ALT2. I am going to give for the moment. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

TheLonelyPather, they did not learn the script in English for the Mongolian performances—that would make literally no sense. It was so that if they needed to perform in English in London, they would be able to. See this source: "in preparation for their trip to the UK, the entire cast (few of whom speak any English) learned the entire translated script phonetically on the chance they’d get to perform it (in the end, they’re performing in the original Mongolian, with English surtitles)." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, now it makes much more sense. with no preference over any hook. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good luck on promoting Genghis Khan!

The Night Watch (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Mongol Khan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Frzzl (talk · contribs) 18:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I'd like to take this one on.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  18:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Frzzl! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

No problem - I've added comments. If you fundamentally disagree with any of my proposed rephrasings, just say so - they're simply some personal preferences.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  20:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries Frzzl; all should be responded to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Lovely jubbly; the inclusion of the photo of the theatre is a very nice choice. Passing!  Frzzl  talk; contribs  20:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lede

   Could we mention the approximate time range of the Xiongnu Empire? The lay reader would have no clue when it existed. - F

   Synopsis

   Well written, not too long/appropriate level of depth. - F

   Cast

   I've seen several sources mention the fact that it has seventy cast members, with seven lead actors - I think this is probably worth mentioning, separately from the information about the size of the theatre company. It would allow you to remove the "Source:" bit of text below the list as well. - F

   History

   With no images to break it up, the sheer number of paragraphs here makes it a little harder to read. Could you add some subheadings? Perhaps split in three: with the headings "China" and "London"? - F

   Even though only one member is fluent in the language; is -> was

   wikilink soft power

   I think that "of the United Kingdom's recognition of Mongolian sovereignty" flows a little better than the United Kingdom recognising Mongolia's sovereignty.

   Reception

   The reception of the London production varied from positive to negative. feels a little odd and strung out. Perhaps "The London production was met by a mixed response from critics" or something or the sort?

   issues with the flaky plot -> "flaky", missed from quotation marks.

1. Overall, not all bad! Will be happy to pass the article once the above queries have been adressed.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  20:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig brings up only quotes, so passed for copyvio. The references section is well formatted, so no issues there either. A few primary sources have been used, but in context, there appears to be no issues with them.

   6 spotchecks, randomly taken:

   ref 2) Passed for verifiability and copyvio (not that you really could)

   ref 5) Passed for verifiability and copyvio

   ref 9) Passed for verifiability and copyvio

   ref 10) If Google Translate is serving me well, no problems with copyvios, and it confirms the prose

   ref 13) Passed for verifiability and copyvio; well-written, I like the simplification to "mammalian"

   ref 18) Passed for verifiability

1. Very nice! - F

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Well focused, well sized, and covers all the major aspects of the play. Summary style is used well, the synopsis is not excessive. - F

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article is overall neutral. The Reception section is nicely balanced with reviews - all opinions are clearly marked as such. - F

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Only issue would be the adding and deletion of images, but that is resolved and several months passed. - F

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Only image used is a promotional poster for the play, which is appropriately tagged as Fair Use and at a fair resolution. The promotional photos have been deleted, so no issue there. - F

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The discussion above 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.