Talk:Battle of Caishi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Battle of Caishi is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 18, 2014.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 29, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
March 28, 2014 Featured article candidate Promoted
Did You Know
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Military history (Rated FA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject China / History (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (marked as Mid-importance).

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 12:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Please let me offer an apology for the delay of the review - RL obligations piled up quickly.

  • No disambiguation links found (no action required)
  • Checklinks reports all external links are in order (no action required)
  • There are a couple of duplicate links which should be removed per WP:OVERLINK. Those are: Trebuchet and Coup d'état
  • All images are properly licenced and have appropriate captions (no action required)
  • Image File:China 11b.jpg links to itself as a source. I assume the map may be found in a book someplace - could you indicate such a source?
  • Prose referencing appears to be in order.
  • In "The boundary between the two states was established along the Huai River, a river north of the Yangtze." I trust "a river north" would be better off replaced by "running north" (or something along those lines) to avoid repetition of "river", especially with the indefinite article - since it is already identified as the Huai River.
  • I would prefer summing up "Rise of Emperor Hailing" subsection since it is a part of an already sizable background section surpassing the topic of the article by far, and there already is an article on the emperor. It is no dealbreaker here, but I'd strongly suggest this course of action.
  • Where does the loss of "100-4,000 soldiers" presented in the infobox come from? I did not find it in the prose and it lacks a reference.
  • The prose does not specify (nor reference) Hailingwang as commander. Please address this.
    • Now fixed. Hailing appointed himself head of the army expanded to Hailing appointed himself head of the army and had personal command over the Jurchen forces.

Nice work. There are few matters to address before the nomination is passed. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

All clear! Congrats--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


Too bad this is a featured article. The writing is fairly confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel it is not currently in FA shape - but it has the potential to be strengthened into one without that much work - mostly, the sources need to be more scholarly. (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)