Talk:Mongol conquest of the Qara Khitai/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khanate General (talk · contribs) 05:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article in the next few days.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 05:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Khanate General:: It's now a day shy of three weeks that this review has been open, and you have made no comments. What's the status?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay. I plan on reviewing the article by next Tuesday.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 06:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The second sentence is somewhat clunky with too many clauses. It would be better if it were split into two: The Qara Khitai weakened from their struggle with the Khwarazmian dynasty and the usurpation of power by the Naiman prince Kuchlug. They attracted attention from the Mongols when Kuchlug besieged Almaliq, a city belonging to the Karluks, vassals of the Mongol Empire.

Background

A Howard is cited here but no Howard appears in the references. Did you mean Howorth?
Could you cite a source other than Howorth? He was an amateur historian and his book was written nearly 140 years, so it isn't considered a reliable source.
Khwarezm is used in "Muhammad II of Khwarezm used the opportunity to seize Samarkand" yet Khwarazm is used elsewhere in the article. The names should be consistent.
The article should contain a brief one-sentence introduction of the Khwarazmian Empire and the Qara Khitai. The ordinary reader isn't even going to know where they were located.
"...many historians consider the death of Zhilegu the end of the Qara Khitai Empire."Many" is a weasel word. How many historians is many? It would be better if you name the historians.

Invasion

The section should be longer. The Background is nearly three times the size of the actual Invasion part of the article.
"oppressive policy of religious persecution" is a bit redundant. It should be shortened to just "policy of religious persecution."
The chronologic flow is odd... the paragraph starts in 2018 and finishes in 2017, but is written sequentially. Should 2018 be 2016? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffme (talk • contribs) 16:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

Yarkand and the Kankalis are mentioned here, but nowhere else. How did the Mongol Empire go about conquering Yarkand and subduing the Kankalis during their war with the Qara Khitai?

General comments

The article is neutral and stable.
The image is properly tagged.

--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 11:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed some of the prose issues, and re-wrote most of the article, excising half of the Background section. How does it look now, Khanate General?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so far. I've switched the citation format to sfn so that the inline citations link to the bibliographic citations. However, there are a few remaining problems:

Is "Peter, Chapter 6" referring to Peter Golden? No one with the surname Peter appears in the bibliography.
The Juvayni bibliographic citation needs to be properly formatted. It should include the year the original source was published, the translator's name, the date the translation was published, the publisher of the translation, etc.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 12:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these done, Khanate General.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no further concerns, so I'm passing this GAN.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 01:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]