Wikipedia:Peer review/List of emperors of the Qing Dynasty/archive1
List of emperors of the Qing Dynasty[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi everybody! I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get feedback on a few issues before I apply for featured list status. The content I added is the kind of info that reviewers requested on the FL reviews for List of emperors of the Han Dynasty (here) and List of emperors of the Song Dynasty (here), both of which are now featured. I think the list of Qing emperors is actually more complete than those two featured lists, but there are also more details and therefore more text. So I would like feedback on three main issues: (1) Is the text that accompanies the list too long? (2) Would a brief section on the political roles of the Qing emperor be useful? (3) Is everything clear even to people who don't know anything about Chinese history?
Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hello! Just a few quick comments about the images.
- File:The Ci-Xi Imperial Dowager Empress (5).JPG is missing a Summary box listing the description, date, and author of the image.
- In File:Nurhaci image.JPG, the date and author are blank.
- File:Emperor_Huang_Taiji.jpg contains the upload date, but not the approximate date of creation.
- File:Jiaqing.jpg has the wrong license tag. It should be PD-Art 100, not Self CC. The uploader also listed himself as the source, which can't be right. What's the original source? Was it scanned from a book?
- File:The Imperial Portrait of Emperor Guangxu2.jpg. The source is missing. The image was transferred to Commons, but what was the original source?
- File:003-The Imperial Portrait of a Chinese Emperor called "Daoguang".JPG. The date is the upload date, and not the date of creation. Also, the source listed is "I took this photograph from my own book". Which book?
- In File:《咸丰皇帝朝服像》.jpg, the date is blank. The PD-Art tag is also missing a parameter.
- The alt text is missing from the captions.
- Excellent article overall.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Thank you for the detailed feedback! I had taken a brief look at the images, but I hadn't realized that they had so many problems. I now notice that in many cases, even sourcing is problematic, as many images were downloaded from websites that no longer exist. This will definitely be a problem in a featured list review. I will take care of this as soon as I finish the two GA reviews (on Shamanism in the Qing dynasty and Deliberative Council of Princes and Ministers) that I'm involved in right now. Thanks again! Madalibi (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
A few copyediting comments, not a complete review:
- "it only succeeded the Ming dynasty": I think something like this might be easier to follow: "It was founded in [wherever] in 1636, then succeeded the Ming Dynasty in China proper in 1644."
- "The Qing was founded as the "Later Jin" in 1616 by Nurhaci (1559–1626), khan of the Jurchens, in reference to the Jurchen Jin dynasty": Keep words close to the words they modify when possible (and as a bonus, this changes the sentence from passive to active voice): "Nurhaci (1559–1626), khan of the Jurchens, founded the Qing in 1616 and named it the "Later Jin" after the Jurchen Jin dynasty (1115–1234)
- ""Shunzhi", "Qianlong", "Guangxu": "Shunzhi", "Qianlong", and "Guangxu"
- "If we count Nurhaci": The editorial "we" doesn't make as much sense on Wikipedia as in scholarly works.
- I'm trying to think of other formulations, but they all sound awkward. "If one counts Nurhaci" is falsely impersonal. "Counting Nurhaci" or "Including Nurhaci" doesn't make it clear that Nurhaci may or may not be counted depending on how we define "emperor". Do you have any suggestions? Madalibi (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- See WP:FIRSTPERSON. Would you say scholars are roughly evenly divided on whether he was considered a ruler? The correct definition of scholarly words is a subject that fascinates scholars more than some of our readers, so if he is usually considered a ruler, just count him as a ruler (and you can attribute that to "most historians" if you like). - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I see what you mean. I actually meant "we" in the sense of "everyone including the reader", not as some kind of scholarly group. But maybe this is too didactic. Anyway I included this point not because there is a scholarly debate on this issue, but because I've seen editors and IPs raise this very issue on the talk page of several articles on Qing emperors, and other editors couldn't really answer why or whether "we" (i.e., Wikipedia as represented by its editors) should consider Nurhaci as an emperor. To clarify, Nurhaci was obviously a ruler, and he founded the state that eventually became the Qing, but he never called himself "emperor" (huangdi). That's why some purists, including some scholars and many history aficionados, will say that Nurhaci's son Hong Taiji was the first real emperor of the Qing dynasty. As the article explains, later Qing emperors considered Nurhaci as "Taizu" ("first progenitor"), a name that was reserved for the first emperor of a dynasty. In that sense he can be considered an emperor. Anyway I digress. Let me think of a good way to rephrase all this without sounding like I'm splitting hairs or being to didactic. Thank you again for your helpful comments! Madalibi (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I see what you mean. I actually meant "we" in the sense of "everyone including the reader", not as some kind of scholarly group. But maybe this is too didactic. Anyway I included this point not because there is a scholarly debate on this issue, but because I've seen editors and IPs raise this very issue on the talk page of several articles on Qing emperors, and other editors couldn't really answer why or whether "we" (i.e., Wikipedia as represented by its editors) should consider Nurhaci as an emperor. To clarify, Nurhaci was obviously a ruler, and he founded the state that eventually became the Qing, but he never called himself "emperor" (huangdi). That's why some purists, including some scholars and many history aficionados, will say that Nurhaci's son Hong Taiji was the first real emperor of the Qing dynasty. As the article explains, later Qing emperors considered Nurhaci as "Taizu" ("first progenitor"), a name that was reserved for the first emperor of a dynasty. In that sense he can be considered an emperor. Anyway I digress. Let me think of a good way to rephrase all this without sounding like I'm splitting hairs or being to didactic. Thank you again for your helpful comments! Madalibi (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- See WP:FIRSTPERSON. Would you say scholars are roughly evenly divided on whether he was considered a ruler? The correct definition of scholarly words is a subject that fascinates scholars more than some of our readers, so if he is usually considered a ruler, just count him as a ruler (and you can attribute that to "most historians" if you like). - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm trying to think of other formulations, but they all sound awkward. "If one counts Nurhaci" is falsely impersonal. "Counting Nurhaci" or "Including Nurhaci" doesn't make it clear that Nurhaci may or may not be counted depending on how we define "emperor". Do you have any suggestions? Madalibi (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- "soon before dying": shortly before dying. - Dank (push to talk) 02:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)