Wikipedia:Peer review/Emperor Wu of Han/archive1

Emperor Wu of Han

This article looks like it's comprehensive and almost ready to be nominated as a featured article. Some of the text appears to be lacking stylistically though. Please check for historical accuracy and comprehensiveness and see what needs to be done with the prose so this can be nominated. --Jiang 12:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Emperor Wu is considered one of the greatest emperors in Chinese history..." Says who? Needs a reference to validate this statement. While we're on the topic, there aren't any references in the first place.
Notes section is in the wrong format, see this.
Remove the question mark from the header "bisexuality".

Other than that, it looks fine to me. LordViD 13:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I've reformatted the notes section and removed the question mark. I've asked the main contributor for references. --Jiang 14:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll try to insert references over the weekend (perhaps today). How frequent should references be, as a rule of thumb? And also, should they generally be inserted as comments or as links? (I do also heavily rely on a single print source, but the other sources are all online-reachable.)
  - But a thought about the bisexuality section; I put the ? in originally because it was unconfirmed; his relation with Han Yan was likely sexual but is not anywhere as confirmable as, for example, the one between Emperor Ai of Han and Dong Xian, and even that one is not what I'd consider proven beyond a reasonbale doubt. What was the particular issue with putting a ? in the section heading? --Nlu 17:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - One thing -- I've actually am at a loss of having a good strong source that states and defends the proposition that Emperor Wu was one of the greatest emperors in Chinese history -- it is basicallly an oft-stated proposition by those who study Chinese history and accepted without question (due to territorial expansions). Bo Yang gave a long analysis and agreed with the proposition (and I'll cite that), but Bo is hardly a traditional historian. There are many, many popular discourses online where the proposition is generally stated without much questioning (some gave brief analyses); are those going to be considered acceptable sources? --Nlu 18:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An article does not have to have many references. Only statements which might arouse controversy need a reference to verify them. See this article for an example of how to reference print sources and external websites. WP:CITE might also aid you.
I always thought question marks in headers looked un-encyclopaedic, and that the heading Possible bisexuality would be more appropriate, but a quick look at the Comet Hale-Bopp article, which is a featured article, revealed that question marks are acceptable. So nevermind that :p.
The analysis by Bo Yang would be perfectly accepatble. Online sources, however, are okay unless they are from bulletin boards, blogs, personal websites etc. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for help.

Keep up the good work! LordViD 20:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks. I've added five additional references, but I see nothing else in the article that is controversial and therefore didn't add additional citations. Can you (or somebody else) look through the article and see what I might be missing? (As the person who wrote the majority of the article, I obviously believe that what's in there's non-controversial :-), but that might not be of the opinion of everyone.) --Nlu 22:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]