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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
As part of GA sweeps, I will be conducting a re-review of this article to ensure that it continues to maintain GA standards. AS the article is very long, I will need several sessions to read through it all. I will be listing potential problems here as I find them. These can be addressed immediately or left until the formal GA review begins once I have finished. If problems remain once the review begins, editors will have seven days to begin making improvements to the article or it may be delisted. If work is progressing then as much time as required will be available. Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not a problem for GA, and will not come up in the review, but it strikes me that a significant proportion of this article relates to the militaruy history of the period. However, the individual wars do not have their own articles and the obvious limitiations of space in this article mean that it can be frustrating to read at times: keen to find out more but the information not being avaliable. It would be interesting in the long term if someone can develop articles on the seperate wars to see them in more detail and from a range of perspectives.
Again, this will not come up at GAR, but the article has many red links which would be better blue from a contextual standpoint.
The whole article is in need of a copyedit. Problems are mainly centered around redundancy and the slightly odd sentence structure used within the article that sometimes makes paragraphs more complicated than they need to be. I am still deciding whether this problem will be a pass/fail issue at GAR, although it is definately something that should be addressed.
This will be in the review. "During the first couple decades of rule," - vague and colloquial, give a more precise time scale and/or phrase it more encyclopedically.
"peace was an illusion as the Song was more concerned with consolidating the south." - its not clear what this means from the context.
Dates should not be wikilinked.
who is "James A. Anderson"? Explain in the article.
who is "Su Shi"?
"Kaifeng (or Bianjing as the city was known during the Song period)," - if a place had a different name during the period under discussion, then use that name and pipe link it. If you think it is essential, then explain the difference the first time it is mentioned. Don't use a name simply because it is modern, that is an anachronism.
Right, I have finished my review. In almost every aspect, the article is brilliant. However there is one aspect in which it falls down badly: the quality of its prose. I suggest that rather than force you to perform a major copyedit under time pressure or try to find someone else to do it, you leave it with me. I can copyedit the article (it may be a slow process) and once done I will pass as GA (as there are no other outstanding issues). I will post anything I am unsure about here and you can comment on my changes and reverse or further amend them as necessary. If this is acceptable to you then please let me know. --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Have at it! I made some amendments according to your suggestions, but now she's all yours. You've done an excellent job reviewing the article so far; I trust your judgment.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)