Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Changsha Kingdom/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 May 2020 [1].

Changsha Kingdom

Nominator(s): Esiymbro (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a vassal kingdom of early Han dynasty China, notably the only one that is not ruled by the imperial clan. Changsha is one of the better known among the kingdoms, but overall, this is perhaps still a relatively overlooked topic in Chinese history. The article has recently passed GA review, and hopefully it is also up to FA standards now.

This is my first FAC nomination but the article's language and style have been much improved thanks to the DYK and GA reviews. I'll try my best to solve any remaining issue. All feedback is welcome! Esiymbro (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

NB, I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

I have done some

  • "until Wu Zhu died without an heir." Could we have a date after this. Which will also tell a reader the duration of the kingdom, which ought to be early in a lead.
  • Or add to the first sentence ', which existed 203 –157 BC, 157 BC – 9 AD and 26 – 33 AD'
    • Added several dates to the lead, including those of Wu Zhu's death and the second interruption of the kingdom.
  • "was then still fertile lowlands" I think "still" is redundant.
    • Done.
  • "he organized a mostly Baiyue army to rebel" To rebel against what he organized a mostly Baiyue army to rebel? And/or, to what end?
    • I've provided some background for this period, so that it is now clear that he was against the Qin.
  • The infobox map legend. Optional: indicate which is the Changsha Kingdom. Eg 'Changsha Kingdom shown in light green, bottom centre'.
    • Done.
  • "The capital was known as Linxiang". "was known as" seems to beg questions? Why not simply 'was'?
    • Indeed, removed the 'known as'.
  • "survive the emperor's campaign" Upper case E, as you are referring to a specific emperor, per
    MOS:JOBTITLES
    .
    • Done.
  • "was forced to rebel" Again this seems to beg a question. Perhaps briefly state why, or change to 'rebelled'?
    • Changed to 'rebelled' – I think its cause will be difficult to explain in one or two sentences, so I left it out.
  • "the king of Changsha pretended to assist him" Upper case K.
    • Changed this and some other similar cases.
  • "Wu Chen reigned for 8 years" "8" → 'eight', per
    MOS:NUMERAL
    . Other, similar, cases also need changing.
    • All changed.
  • Link "enfeoffed" - Feoffment.
    • Done.

Looking pretty good so far. Nice work. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Zhao Tuo, King of Nanyue" In another case when you use this formulation ("Ying Bu, king of Huainan") you use a lower case k. There are arguments either way, but you should be consistent.
    • All changed to uppercase now.
  • "but subtle differences remained" Remained from what?
    • It's from the imperial government. It is mentioned in the first sentence 'closely followed that of the Han central government', and I edited the following paragraph to make it clearer.
Yes, that works.
  • "Citations" Several "p." should be 'pp.'.
    • All corrected.
  • Hucker is in the bibliography, but is not cited.
    • This source is used mainly for the translation of Chinese terms, so there is no inline citations yet. How do you think should the citations be added, or should I remove this entry altogether?
  • I have boldly moved it to "Further reading". If you don't like this, feel free to revert. Alternatively, you could add a sentence to this section explaining the book's role.
I see, that works well.
  • Li Shisheng, Wu and Yi need identifiers.
    • These journals probably don't have DOIs. Will urls be sufficient? I've added the links.
Ho hum. OK, let's leave it for whoever does the source review.
  • Loewe and Harper need page numbers.
    • Done.
  • "All of the imperial Nine Ministers also" One of "All" or "also" is redundant.
    • Done.
  • "Rice was the main staple food" One of "main" or "staple" is redundant.
    • Done.
  • "domesticated animals including pigs, cattle, sheep, dogs, and chickens and game animals and fowl including deer, hares, wild geese, Mandarin ducks, wild ducks, bamboo partridges, cranes, doves, magpies, owls, and sparrows." You have "and" three times in that list, which reads a little clumsily. Also, are you sure that deer and hares are types of fowl?
    • Rewritten the sentence, added "game animals" to the list.
Nice.
  • "A selection of beers, made from wheat, millet, and rice, was also available." This reads more like a sales brochure than an encyclopedia entry. Could you consider rephrasing?
    • Changed 'available' to 'discovered', that probably sounds better.
  • Link zither.
    • Done.
  • "Science and Technology" section header. Lower case t per
    MOS:SECTIONCAPS
    .
    • Done.
  • "Ironware had become available for agricultural and military application" What is "had become" alluding to? As opposed to, say, 'was'.
    • Done, changed to 'was'. It seems that was not a totally new development, so 'Ironware was available' will be better.

A cracking article. I enjoyed that. That's it from me for now. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Many thanks for taking the time to review! I've corrected most of the issues here, and replied to the others. Esiymbro (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I started to say above that I have done a little copy editing, and that you should let me know if you are unhappy with any of my changes. But I only got part way through the sentence. Apologies. I have done a little more, and the same applies.
A fine article. Impressive on first reading and prompt and effective responses to my comments. Are you sure that this is your first FAC? Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great to hear that :) Esiymbro (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • The Changsha Kingdom was a kingdom of China's Han dynasty, located in present-day Hunan and some surrounding areas." I find this confusing as I would take it to mean that it was independent but you say above that it was a vassal kingdom. For clarity, maybe "The Changsha Kingdom was a vassal kingdom of China's Han dynasty, located in the south of the empire in present-day Hunan and some surrounding areas."
  • Edited to 'a kingdom within the Han Empire of China'. I'm a bit hesitant to use the term "vassal", though. In Chinese contexts, the term seem to be more commonly applied to non-Chinese states outside of China proper (for example the Xiongnu in later Han times).
  • Is it well established that each king was the son of the previous one? Five generations in 24 years (203-179 BC) seems unlikely.
  • The sources indeed say that they were all sons. But the ancient Chinese usually marry and have children in late teenage years, and there's also the fact that Wu Rui was already quite old in 203 BC. Assuming he was 60 at that time, we'll have 84 years for 5 generations, 17 on average, so still a bit short but not too unrealistic.
  • It seems to me very unrealistic. 24 years for 5 Wu generations and 105 years for 5 Liu generations! However you have to go by the source. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Changsha branch of the Liu family saw its autonomy greatly diminished". The relevance of this comment is unclear without explanation. Had the kingship been granted to a member of the Liu family? Did they side with the rebels?
  • The 'Liu family' is supposed to mean the imperial family, changed to that.
  • "Changsha was one of the largest and longest-lasting kingdoms of the Han dynasty." I think it would again be helpful to clarify with "vassal kingdoms".
  • Changed.
  • "Changsha was relatively advanced in technology and art." Relatively advanced compared with what? Other vassal kingdoms?
  • Rewritten this part.
  • "the magistrate of Poyang County under the Qin" For clarity maybe "the previous dynasty, the Qin".
  • Done, added the time span of Qin dynasty.
  • "When the Chu Hegemon-King Xiang Yu became the prominent leader in the rebellion" This is ungrammatical. I would say "the most prominent leader" or "the leader".
  • Done, added 'the most'.
  • I am confused about the fall of the Qin. Was it a three way fight with Rui defecting from Chu to Liu Bang? If so, you should say so.
  • "it was the only one to survive the Emperor's campaign to eliminate kings that were not members of the imperial family" This assumes that you have already mentioned the campaign. I would say in x year the emperor launched a campaign and Changsha was the only one to survive.
  • Done.
  • "who favored Huang–Lao political views" For clarity maybe "the Huang-Lao school of political thought".
  • Done.
  • "In 183 BC, however, Zhao Tuo proclaimed himself emperor in Nanyue and then twice invaded Changsha, occupying a few counties. The reason was Empress Lü's decision to ban the trade of iron ware" This raises several issues. Did he proclaim in Nanyue that he was emperor of China or of Nanyue? Was he trying to conquer Changsha? "The reason was" is vague and "the trade of iron ware" is ungrammatical. Maybe "In 183 BC the empress banned the export of iron wares to Nanyue, and Zhao Tuo retaliated by twice invading Changsha."
  • Done.
  • More to follow. This is an interesting article, but I find it difficult to follow due to the unclear language. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to go over this article! About the language issue, I think the difficulty is perhaps caused by the historical background of this period. There were some very complex conflicts in the 3rd-2nd centuries BC period so it's inevitable that some parts may seem unclear without fully explaining the overall situation. I've rewritten the history section a bit and hopefully the chronology and events are a lot clearer now. Working on other issues soon. Esiymbro (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: These are all great points, fixed now. Esiymbro (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments
  • "After hearing news of the uprising, Wu Rui organized a mostly Baiyue army in support of the rebel." "the rebellion"?
  • Edited.
  • "Rui's army joined forces with the Han leader Liu Bang" You should link "Han" as it is the first mention in the main text.
  • Done.
  • "Hegemon-King Xiang Yu" What is a Hegemon-King? Is there an article you can link to?
  • Changed to simply 'king'.
  • "Han would eventually won its conflict with Chu" This is ungrammatical. Maybe "The Han would eventually win its conflict with the Chu"
  • Done.
  • Territory section. The places mentioned will mean nothing to many readers. Is any estimate of the area available?
  • Unfortunately no, but maybe I can add a map to display these locations.
  • "Changsha was sparsely populated compared to other parts of the Han dynasty." A dynasty being sparsely populated sounds wrong. I would say "Han empire".
  • Done.
  • "vassal kingdoms" You use this term twice although you say you do not like it.
  • All deleted. It's because much of this article was edited by earlier reviewers. I wouldn't use that myself, though.
  • "Except for the chancellor and grand tutor (太傅, tàifù) who were selected by the imperial court, all officials were appointed by the king." I think you need a comma after "tutor (太傅, tàifù)" for clarity.
  • Done.
  • "the grand tutor played a much more extensive role in a kingdom, as he supervised the king for the imperial government." I would say "on behalf of" the imperial government". Also, this contradicts the statement that the chancellor was highest. I think you should put the grand tutor at the start of Government section and clarify his power over the king and his government.
  • Adjusted the paragraph and moved the tutor's part higher up. The chancellor is still the highest office – the chancellor was also appointed by the emperor rather than the king himself, so the grand tutor's tasks would not have much to do with him. Based on the job's duties I also imagine that the tutor would not have direct power over other officials and affairs in the court, while the chancellor would.
  • "Meanwhile, the high status of the court clerk was similar to that of the Warring States rather than the Han central government." This means little unles you explain the status of the court clerk in the Warring States.
  • Added a brief explanation.
  • You have a section heading "Culture", but it also includes food. Maybe "Food and culture" or "Daily life"
  • Changed. What about 'culture and life'?
  • @Dudley Miles: All fixed. Thanks for the advice, I'm definitely going to try that in the future. Esiymbro (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks fine now apart from the heading "Culture and life". That does not work because culture is part of life. How about "Culture and daily life"? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with that, edited. Esiymbro (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

I'm embarrassed to say that I knew nothing about this topic coming into the article. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "that resulted in the collapse of Qin" - should this be "that resulted in the collapse of the Qin"?
  • Done.
  • "The Han would eventually won its conflict" - the grammar and tense are both off here
  • Rewritten the sentence.
  • "The campaign was eventually cancelled " - "cancelled" sounds a bit wrong here. Should it be "abandonded?"
  • Done.
  • Can anything be said about the Kingdom's economy and relative prosperity/standards of living? Nick-D (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to be embarrassed about, Nick! It is really an obscure topic, usually this will only get one or two sentences at most in a book on Chinese history.
As for the economy and living standards, I've moved some information on the economy (mainly about agriculture and artisanship) to a new standalone section. What do you think about this? I don't remember reading anything in the sources about details the Kingdom's daily life – I can't add much to this article right now since the coronavirus is keeping me at home, but once things settle down a bit I can hopefully go through the sources again and see if I can find more about the topic. Esiymbro (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That all looks good. Information about the economies of ancient civilisations tends to be fairly thin on the ground. I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

Nb. It is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

  • "File:Han dynasty Kingdoms 195 BC.png" Source: the image may be "own work" - fine - but I assume that the information for it was drawn from a RS? Which needs to be cited, just like any other information in an article. See File:Battle of Cape Ecnomus map.svg for an example.
  • I've written the source at its commons page but forgot to cite here, added a citation now.
Ah. The original source is at the end of Description on the Commons page. I have added the cite to Source; feel free to edit it.
  • "File:Western Han Mawangdui Silk Map.JPG" Sadly, while the original map may be out of copyright, the photograph of it isn't - or, at least, no evidence has been presented that it is. It has been scanned from Artisans in early imperial China so I am doubtful.
  • "File:Banière funéraire, peinture sur soie, Chine.jpg" Similar to above. The photograph is dated to 2015 and no case is made for it being PD.
  • "File:Mawangdui Astrology Comets Ms.JPG" Similar. It seems to have been scanned direct from a book. It also lacks a US PD tag.
  • Changed to appropriate tag on Commons.
  • Consider adding alt text.
  • Done.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the three images in question I think the "faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art" tag should be enough for public domain status. They are all used in a lot of articles, especially the map which is also in the FA article "Sino-Roman relations". Esiymbro (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In which case could you put the map images PD tag(s) inside a =={{int:license-header}}== notice - as you have done for the comets and banner images. I was doubtful as to whether the funeral banner can be considered "two-dimensional", but on consideration I think that it can. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the map image. Personally I think the banner is fine – but the 2-D requirement is a bit confusing indeed. Esiymbro (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Did I miss a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I originally came in to do a source review but spotted some prose and style issues that lead me to believe this isn't quite ready for promotion yet.

  • Given the length of the article a longer lead would be appropriate
The article itself is not very long (18 kb prose) so per
MOS:LEADLENGTH
the current lead should be sufficient. Maybe the second paragraph can be expanded a bit?
At the least. The lead should summarize the article, and at the moment it's almost entirely summarizing just the history section. Rereading it, I also wonder whether there should be a dedicated section or subsection outlining our sources of information about the kingdom - for example, after the lead the Mawangdui tombs are mentioned several times before we hit an explanation of what they are. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have concerns about some of the prose. Examples:
    All edited.
    Those specific examples, yes. The article would benefit from a more comprehensive pass for clarity and flow. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "20 marquisates was created from Changsha. These marquisates were" - plural vs singular verb
    • "Numerous archaeological sites of the kingdom have been discovered and excavated; most notably Mawangdui" - incorrect punctuation
    • "measures 128 cm long by 190 cm wide but weights only 49 grams in total" - typo (should be "weighs") and also missing conversions
    • "until early the 1st century AD" - missing a word
    • "was among the weakest among the kingdoms" - repetitive
  • Infobox and text both give established date as 203/202 BC, but lead says only 202 - why?
202 BC was for the establishment of the Han empire, not the Changsha Kingdom. Made a small edit in case there is any ambiguity.
  • "was demoted first to the rank of duke and then to a commoner" - need a bit more context here. Is duke a high rank within the ranking system at that time? Are there many ranks between duke and commoner? How does it compare to the rank of marquis mentioned later?
"Stripped of his titles" would be a better expression here. The rank of duke (English translation of the title gong) was roughly equivalent in status to its western counterpart so it won't need much additional explanation.
At the moment the article doesn't provide enough information for a reader to know that, even assuming the average reader is familiar with duke vs marquis in the western system. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curly quote marks shouldn't be used
I didn't find any ...?
  • The Economy and Science sections could do more to contextualize their contents. For example, how did diet and agriculture in this region compare to elsewhere in the empire? Are the texts mentioned specific to this region or imported from elsewhere? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The information on economy and science are all based on pieces of archeological evidence scattered in different tombs so I don't think making such a comparison will be easy. If you find it really important then maybe I can link the "Economy of the Han dynasty" and "Science and technology of the Han dynasty" articles or add a summary of them. As for the texts, they are all found exclusively in this region. I've edited the section to make it clear.
I think my point may have been unclear: my question is not whether currently these texts are specific to this region, but historically - were they written by Changsha scholars, or brought into Changsha from elsewhere? The last work is mentioned to be by a Chu author but for the others this is not stated. And yes, I think broader contextualization would be useful. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've addressed the issues. Most of these are relatively minor problems on language and style left over in previous rounds of reviews, I believe. If there are still any remaining it should be entirely possible for me to correct them in one run. Esiymbro (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It is not immediately clear what the first source is citing. Upon checking it seems to be the basis for the map, but I haven't seen images sourced like that before. If it contains information that was useful to build that picture, than perhaps it contains information that can be introduced as prose as well? That would be better in terms of
    WP:ACCESS
    for those who can't see the map.
  • The second source is used to establish that "Changsha was one of the largest and longest-lasting kingdoms in Han China." However, this is not repeated in the article body, and the article body does not definitively support the statement, as it only compares its length with the kingdoms that were eliminated by 190 BC.
  • In the sentence "In 178 BC, the kingdom...", "the kingdom" should be changed, as the last entity mentioned was Nanyue.
  • The lead says the kingdom was "re-established" in 155 BC. That gives the impression it was somehow ended after the initial dynasty died, but the article prose doesn't explain the gap at all.
  • The beginning of the territorial extent section needs to be reworded. Instead of starting with a statement about a theoretical size, before saying it is unlikely, and then giving another theoretical size, then caveating, perhaps group the two sizes and then state both are unlikely, and then provide the explanations.
  • Is there a reason the final two kings did not receive Posthumous names?
  • As an overall point, the lead is insufficient as a summary of the article. It is also unbalanced, with 1 article section (history) take up the majority of the lead.

Comments aside, I enjoyed reading about the topic, and appreciate how cleanly the historiography is worked into the text. CMD (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional coord note

@Nikkimaria and Chipmunkdavis: How are things standing with your comments/oppose? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
WP:LEAD), and would oppose on that basis. I'm less sure how my other comments relate to the criteria. CMD (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
There don't appear to have been any edits to the article since my most recent comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Esiymbro, you appear to have edited WP recently so pls address the above issues ASAP as we need to look at closing this one way or the other. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: You can go on and close it. I won't have much time in the next few days. Esiymbro (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're welcome to bring this back for another nom after addressing the sourcing issues (presumably beyond the two-week minimum waiting period for a re-nom after this is closed). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Changsha_Kingdom/archive1&oldid=958729352"