A fact from Toluid Civil War appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 April 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mongols, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mongol culture, history, language, and 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.MongolsWikipedia:WikiProject MongolsTemplate:WikiProject MongolsMongols articles
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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia articles
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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
I make the simple statement that I do not like to see green words indicating that Wikilink has a redirect. For example, I changed[[Great Khan]] to[[Khanate|Great Khan]] in this article. I changed some other Wikilinks. This is a small change, but we want GA and FA articles to be our best, and to look that way to the average reader. Question: Should "Kublai accused Bolghai, an important Mongol official who served under Möngke, of treachery for conspiring with Ariq Böke." be allowed to stand with Bolghai as a redlink?
I agree with you about redlinks inviting editors to create new articles. Can you create an article about Bolghai, thus making this article better, or should it be changed to Bolghai without brackets, therefore appearing in black type.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is right. I may create an article about Bolghai, but other than that, I am not doing anything more on the review. I have never done a GA review. Can we recruit another editor to do the review?--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to this shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dank
Just here to do some copyediting, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. It's a fine article. If you like the reviewing that you're getting from Milhist, please consider helping us out by doing anything you're comfortable with at Good Article nominations, Peer Reviews or A-Class nominations.
"Ariq Böke": Would it be possible to refer to him with just one name most of the time?
Checklinks reports no problems with external links (no action required)
No duplicate links found (no action required)
Image "Arik Buka defeats Alghu-Rashid al'Din Jami al Tavarikhs-large.jpg" requires US-PD tag
The multiple image (Kublai Khan, Ariq Böke) where images themselves are linked to depicted subjects rather than image captions seems very odd to me. Perhaps it is a WP:EGG violation, but I'm not sure, so I will not require any particular action in that respect here. Still I'd like to urge you to reconsider moving the links to captions rather than images - I would normally expect a click on the image to get me to image information (at the Commons), and a clickable caption to get me more info on the depicted subject.
Referencing appears to be in order.
There is an issue Dank raised above, specifically is there a possiblity to refer to "Ariq Böke" with just one name or not.
Date ranges such as "1260–1264" should be presented as "1260–64" per WP:DATERANGE
While not entirely related to the article itself, the "Mongol civil wars" box items (Berke-Hulagu, Arik Boke-Kublai) should employ ndashes instead of hyphens (i.e. Berke–Hula) per WP:NDASH. The box also spells Ariq Böke a bit differently - is that a permitted variation or does it need fixing?
Interesting article overall. Good work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tomobe03! Thank you for the review. Because Khanate General has been inactive in the last few weeks, I took the liberty to address the issues you raised. In response to Dank's question: no, I have never seen Ariq Böke's name abridged in scholarship on this period. The spelling of his name may vary, but he is never addressed as "Ariq" or "Böke" tout court. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Salut, Dank, et merci encore pour toutes tes contributions!Madalibi (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Avec plaisir. - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's clear then. Does any one of you have an opinion on clickable images linked to articles instead of file information?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomobe03: I actually changed that too,[1] so everything should be all right! Madalibi (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I haven't thought to check that since I did not consider it a dealbreaker, I just figured I'd ask here too. Good to go then. Thanks for stepping up!--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Always a pleasure to help! Thanks again for the review! Madalibi (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
