Talk:Weiyang Palace

China Mid‑importance

	China portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture: Historic houses Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Is the figure for the size accurate?

This article states that the size of Weiyang Palace was 4.8 km² (1,200 acres). This figure is cited to a book which judging by its design and vocabulary level appears to be designed for young readers, like of elementary school to early middle school age. I was amazed by this figure, but when I measured the area of the ruins of Han era Chang'an on Google Earth, it gives almost an identical figure. Conversely, the size of the ruins of Weiyang Palace situated within it is far smaller, coming around 100 acres or approx. 0.4 km². Could the author of that book have gotten the size of Han era Chang'an with the size of Weiyang Palace mixed up? Can we find additional sources to verify this? Sol Pacificus (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article hardly had anything in it.

I could not find what I was looking for and overall the article was way to short. Wikpedia username (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several Issues

This article has several issues: there are only two sources, a low number for such an important topic; while these sources don't seem explicitly unreliable, neither are peer-reviewed, published articles (for which there are many regarding this topic, either directly or indirectly); the second paragraph of the lead section is completely lifted from the second source; furthermore, the way it is cited leads one to believe that the first sentence is sourced to the first source, which it's not.

I am tempted to insert {{more citations needed}}, and possibly {{unreliable sources}}. If no objections are made, I will proceed with the insertion of the first message only, while awaiting further discussion for the insertion of the second.

Eventually I will try to rewrite sections of the article and add more citations.

Dorgondi (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]