Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tibet during the Ming Dynasty

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:25, 13 May 2008.

Tibet during the Ming Dynasty

Self-Nominator. Although there were some discrepancies on the talk page on what the most neutral and NPOV title for this article should be, the current title is fair enough. The prose is up to professional standards, the article is very comprehensive with many different sub-sections treating individual topics of modern scholarly debate, and the sources used are reliable. Although there were some initial arguments about where citations were needed, this issue has pretty much passed, the article is thoroughly cited, and it is now stable.Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current ref 35 "Grand Education Minister Qamqu Gyaincain: A History of the Nam Family" is this a book? If so it needs to be formatted like the other books in the footnotes. Needs a publisher, etc. too.
The Illich, Marina reference, is the Power, Politics and the Reinvention of Tradition a book? If so it needs to be italicised to match the rest of the references.

All other links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed both references. Thank you for commenting!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention article size in my introduction; as of now the article has a total of about 75 KB, although it has only 42 KB of actual prose writing (I checked using my personal sandbox). This is not to say that the article needs to be cut down or expanded any further, just to let people know before someone addresses anything about article size.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who might be interested, as of now the article's prose size is 48 KB, as shown in my sandbox at User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: image licensing concerns:
- Image:16th Century Tibet repousse.jpg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. Who is Conan Lang and how can we confirm he has rights to release as GFDL?
- Image:Hongwu1.jpg needs a verifiable source.
- Image:Mongol Empire map 2.gif has no source, no author and no license information.
- Image:MapAK1.JPG description contains "(Karte: A. Gruschke, Freiburg)", which implies a "self-made" source, as uploader is "Gruschke". Image, however, is not of a resolution, format or coloration typical of self-made works. Uploader, additionally, has multiple deletion warnings/license issues at Commons talk page. Quack?
- Image:Drepung monastery.jpg does not have a source. Author is asserted as "Philipp Roelli", but uploader is "Dbachmann" and a "self" license variant is not used. How can we confirm Roelli has indeed licensed this as GFDL?
- Image:Imperiestro-Ŭan-Li.jpg: "The German Wikipedia" is not valid as a source.
- Image sandwiching issues in the "Assertions in the Mingshi" section, see WP:MOS#Images. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do in regards to contacting those who uploaded these images and getting proper sources for them.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the images in question, I have taken each and every one of them out of the article, replaced some of them, and contacted everyone who uploaded them, except for the Mongol Empire map, I didn't even bother since I found an immediate replacement (even though it is a great animated image, with absolutely no information, I don't even want to trust the person who downloaded it to begin with).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Have LaGrandefr's issues been addressed? I see an edit war-ish thing happening a few days back. Are the Chines characters required in the prose of an article in the English Wikipedia? It really breaks the flow for the many who cannot read them. It is especially problematic in the Tables for administrative offices and officials' titles where the Chinese characters aree half the text in the table. More comments later indopug (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese characters are only necessary when there is no existing wikipedia link for that person, place, or thing in the article. As for the tables, since that is not the prose of the article, I don't see too much of a problem with Chinese characters for each of the administrative units mentioned. Edit-warring with LaGrandefr is off and on; I think a compromise has been unanimously reached though, since little of the new material he added recently has been deleted.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did find one instance where there was an unnecessary bulk of Chinese characters placed in parenthesis in the prose of the article (in the "inheritence, reappointments, and titles" section); I have since deleted that.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments by Collectonian (talk · contribs)

Oppose The article seems to be in need of some thorough copy editing. The prose does not flow well throughout and is a bit unwieldy. In the "Armed intervention and border stability" section, the last statement is self-referencing which is generally a no no. Ditto the last statement in the "Tribute and exchanging tea for horses" section. A few of the sentences leading into a quote are missing their refs (refs should be at the end of the sentence as well as in the quote). I'm also concerned about the stability issues. The edit warring and arguments over its title are still relatively recent. Some of the arguments are still on-going and the descent from civility during some of the recent "discussions" does not reflect well on the future stability. Just yesterday there seems to be an agreement on possibly renaming the article again to Tibetan history during the Ming Dynasty. Collectonian (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it does need a copy-edit job. I would contact the Leage of Copyeditors, but one of their requirements is that the article be stable, and with User:LaGrandefr still lurking around and making a disruptive appearance once about every week, the article will continue to be potentially unstable. I have fixed the technical issues you had with the article, including the self-referencing statements and quotations needing inline citations on sentences before the actual blockquote. I will talk to User:Bertport and see what he still thinks about the title of the article. Personally I think the title is the least contentious issue that the article has as long as the title is completely neutral; "Tibet during the Ming Dynasty" and "Tibetan history during the Ming Dynasty" are both perfectly acceptable in this regard.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to try contacting one of the editors at WP:1FAPQ#Project resources instead. LoCE has been extremely slow to respond in the last few months, and might not get to the article before the FAC is over. Collectonian (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have contacted User:Scartol about this.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scartol is unfortunately busy, so I've contacted User:John Broughton instead.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broughton is now cleaning up the article. There has been no sign of User:LaGrandefr since he was blocked from editing for 24 hours on May 2, so the article seems stable once more.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better, but still see a few statements that appear to be unsourced in the first two sections. Collectonian (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all issues resolved. Collectonian (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support—well, that is, I don't object on the basis of 1a. Tony (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"outside of"—my pet hate; what is "of" doing?
- Response: Lol! Good point. I have fixed that.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese Ming Dynasty (opening). And analogous items.
- Response: If that was in the opening, it appears to be changed by someone, perhaps User:Bertport.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does "r." mean "reign"? Why is it needed where this is explicit in the text?
- Response: Yes it does mean reign, and I will get rid of that one "r" where it is clearly and explicitly mentioned as Jiajing's reign period, not his birth and death dates.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MOS says not to space em dashes; spaced en dashes are fine, or unspaced em.
- Response: Originally, there were no spaces, but someone added them. I have reverted that.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be complaining if there were more Chinese characters in the text. Footnotes are quite possible.
- Response: That's not a half bad idea; I think that would be a good compromise, so I'll shift Chinese text into footnotes as you suggest.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Captions: year ranges: two- or four-digit closings? I'd prefer two, but one is not.
I haven't reviewed this for content; the writing is good, on the whole. Tony (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS MOS says that metrics are the main units unless US-related. Tony (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix the units right now.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support, Tony. I will get to these issues as soon as I can. Right now me and User:Bertport are doing some major reorganizing in the largest section of the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I didn't find any prose issues on a quick read-through. Some subjective things but nothing worth complaining about. I do note that some of your image placement causes headings not to be left-aligned. I thought that was in the MoS but now I can't find it. --Laser brain (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I've actually played around with pictures a bit, and the title in question is no longer left-aligned, so no worries if it was ever a problem to begin with.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Overall, excellent job of attributing all the opinions and "facts" to their proponents, which leads to a remarkably non-POV article. The prose is also very good. Little things:
"rejected the invitation of Kublai Khan (r. 1260–1294) to appear in his court, so instead Kublai invited Drogön Chögyal Phagpa (1235–1280), leader of the Sakya sect, who came to his court in 1253" - if Kublai ruled from 1260, how did he have a court to visit in 1253? I think I am missing something.
~~Quotations of less than 4 lines shouldn't be broken out (WP:MOSQUOTE)~~

Karanacs (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I should have elaborated in the article, but Kublai was a Mongol prince and potential heir with a large appanage before he was ever the Khan of Khans for the Mongols, or even an Emperor of China for that matter. Also, I'll fix the quotations you speak of.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence to explain this.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also fixed the quotations in question, the ones which were blockquoted but were less than 4 lines as you distinctly mentioned.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support It is a very good article. References are very good. Anyone doing who is interested in the history of Tibet will find this article userful. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article is written very well and fulfills all of the criteria, including references and comprehensiveness. Hello32020 (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm having quite a time sorting out the citations. Some of them are notes and some are sources, many are in Chinese, so it's hard to determine what source is citing what text. Have you considered separating notes (translations) from sources? See Gettysburg Address; it's going to take me some time to sort through this article (particularly with Ealdgyth absent). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea! I just fixed the article so it looks exactly like the Gettysburg Address set up. This {{ref label}}/{{ref note}} thing is a bit different than the Cref note stuff I have used in articles like Song Dynasty, but it works just as well.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll have a fresh look tomorrow. It had me flummoxed :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's no big deal, I mastered it in 5 seconds; if I can do it, you can do it. The ref simply brings you down to a different section of an article where you have to spell out the contents outside the brackets, so that it looks like this at the end section: "{{ref note|Chinese text|a|a}} Chinese text: 俄力思軍民元帥府." That's pretty much it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond this, the article has seen major recent expansions and improvements in the past day, even in the introduction. Have a look!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the article weighs up historical knowledge with balancing the views of scholars and historians on the subject very well. It is well structured, well written and well referenced. I can't see how we could ever have a better article on the subject. The only minor quabbles I would have is that in the mid section of the article I think there may be just one or two too many quotes which could either be reduced slightly or converted to prose. But this is only very minor and just a thought. I take it all of the references have been checked for reliability? Clearly a great deal of thought, study and work has gone into this article and it deserves recognition as an FA. Well done to the article writer! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind assessment of the article. I'll see what I can do about the excessive amount of quotes.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed one rather large quote into prose so far.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I approve highly of the images too. So many editors don't think images are important but they in my view contribute towards a great article. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellantly written, no problems that I can see. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 20:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I like your signature! Especially the citation needed. Lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.