Talk:Daughter of Emperor Xiaoming of Northern Wei/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Madalibi (talk · contribs) 06:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will review the article in the next few days. Madalibi (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm back. Here is my first round of comments. I will eventually check the primary sources to see if the text stays close to what they say. Madalibi (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
Extended content
  1. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • According to MOS:BOLDTITLE, which is part of MOS:LEAD, "Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead." This means that daughter of Emperor Xiaoming of Northern Wei should be without a link.
       Fixed. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 14:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not clear what the phrase "not widely recognised by future generations" refers to. Was it the Northern Wei dynasty that was not widely recognized? Or the title of "emperor" for Xiaoming's daughter? Since it's presumably the latter, the phrase could become part of a new sentence like "Later generations have not considered her a real emperor" or something along those lines.
     Fixed, article section mentioned this fact, so I annotated 'controversial' instead. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 14:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Controversial" still doesn't clarify exactly what was controversial. Was she controversial in her time? Why? Is she controversial among modern historians? Why? I know the rest of the text answers these questions clearly, but the lede should be able to stand on its own! I still think a whole sentence would be clearest. Madalibi (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, clarified. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 05:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use both "recognise" and "recognize" in the article. Could you choose one?
    I originally used 'recognise' as in British English when other users edited it.  Done. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs)
  • People who don't know Chinese history will not know what the "Northern Wei" is. Where and when did it rule? Could reformulate to something like "...was briefly emperor of the Northern Wei dynasty (386–534), a Xianbei state that ruled over most of north China from the late fourth to the early sixth century AD."
    Any other articles about Northern Wei mention about the dynasty the same way as this article, with a link to the article about Northern Wei. Is this really necessary? Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 14:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really necessary, no, but it would be helpful to readers who don't know about Chinese history. As far as I know, no other article on the Northern Wei is a good article, so the standards for clarity are lower! Madalibi (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Fixed. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 06:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional, but would help: could you add the life dates (or reign dates) of the people mentioned in the text (when they are known)?
     Done, added for a few important characters only. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 14:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the first section (Birth) a bit messy. We hear twice that the emperor's daughter was born from Consort Pan, twice that the empress dowager proclaimed her a boy, and twice that she ordered a general pardon. We also hear about a lot of things Empress Dowager Hu did, and only later about how she became regent to her son emperor Xiaoming. Could you clean this up so that all these events are only recounted once?
    I don't quite understand: Do you mean they are mentioned in the lead section as well as "Birth" section, or that the content in the Birth section contains repeated information? As for the former case, isn't the lead section a summary for the entire article? Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 14:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean that this information is repeated in each paragraph of the "Birth" section, making it redundant. Could you streamline the narrative so that it is not repetitive? The best way might be to present a strictly chronological account of what happened. Madalibi (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Fixed, rephrased the section. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 06:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section called Dethronement suffers from a similar problem. The second paragraph explains twice that Yuan Zhao was three years old and that Empress Dowager Hu installed him on the throne in order to keep reigning.
     Fixed, rephrased the paragraph. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 14:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the end, she was discredited and became infamous in history for causing the downfall of the dynasty. This sentence would seem to belong better in "Outcome" than in "Dethronement."
    Erm... the Outcome section is for the outcome of the Emperor's daughter. Is it appropriate to be in that section? Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 15:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is, because the section on "Outcome" recounts a lot of events that did not directly involve Xiaoming's daughter, such as the Heyin Incident, Erzhu's massacre of officials, etc. Empress Dowager Hu was discredited for the fall of the dynasty only after the fall of the dynasty, that is, after all the events the Outcome section recounts, so I believe her historical reputation as a "bad last ruler" definitely belongs in the "Outcome" section! Madalibi (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, shifted to the "Outcome" section and reworded the sentence. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 07:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you add a first clause that says "For her role in...., Empress Dowager Hu became discredited..."? That would make the sentence look less dry and isolated. Madalibi (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 05:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Outcome section, the phrases or clauses "sent cavalry soldiers", "tried to explain and defend her actions", "Erzhu became impatient" and "ordered that Empress Dowager Hu and Yuan Zhao [original: "the young emperor"] be thrown into the Yellow River to drown" are taken verbatim from http://www.womenofchina.cn/html/womenofchina/report/88718-1.htm, which is not cited in that section. This is a clear copyright violation: please rephrase.
    I wasn't aware of this, as I copied exactly from this article and this article (which had minimum references/footnotes). Well,  Working... Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 15:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, this happens. Let me know when you have reworded the relevant sentences. Madalibi (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Fixed, rephrase most of it, except for the part where both of them are "thrown into the Yellow River to drown", which is a fact I can't change. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 06:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact can't be changed, but the words can, otherwise we still have a copyright violation. How about "had them drowned in the Yellow River"? Madalibi (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, thanks! Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 05:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Outcome" section, "Based on the fact that" could be replaced by the simpler "Because".
     Done. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 15:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still in the same section, it's not clear what you mean by "implemented the warlord system". Could you clarify what this means more specifically?
    Er... I translated this from "而北魏则开始了由军阀权臣掌控的时代" in the corresponding Chinese article. How should I phrase this in English? Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 15:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Implementing a system" usually means putting into practice a well-thought-out political system, which "warlordism" is not. I rephrased to "Ershu Rong became the highest authority of the empire. From that time on, power fell into the hands of powerful ministers and warlords, and this division eventually led to the downfall of the dynasty." Madalibi (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Spelling mistake corrected: Erzhu, not "Ershu". Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 05:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Researcher Cheng Yang believed": is there a good reason to use the past tense, here? Has Cheng Yang changed his mind on this topic?
    Agree, changed to "believes".  Done. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 15:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • he thought Wu should be "the Empress regnant who ruled in Chinese history": in addition to another past tense, "the Empress regnant who ruled in Chinese history" makes no sense in English. Is it the first Empress regnant in Chinese history? Could you provide the original Chinese so we can see what he is saying?
    Original text: "中国历史上有作为的女皇帝". In fact, the entire article is basically translated from this article of the Chinese Wikipedia, which is a GA. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 15:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's getting late! I'll take a look at this and your other questions tomorrow. Madalibi (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, back to my post. Lack of clarity probably comes from the grammatical difference between "Empress Regnant" in English and 女皇帝 in Chinese. It would be nice to be able to say "female emperor" or "female huangdi" in English, but the former seems like a gender contradiction and the latter would be unclear to most readers. And while the word "Empress" (the female of "Emperor") applies to ruling sovereigns like Queen Victoria, "Empress" corresponds to 皇后 in Chinese, so it's not appropriate either. I think "Empress Regnant" doesn't sound fantastic either—because it seems to refer to an Empress who is doing the actual ruling, a group that would include Empress Dowager Cixi and many early-imperial dowagers—but we have to live with it. Back to the Chinese sentence you cite: here "有作为" seems to mean about the same thing as "Regnant", so we have a duplication. I would translate as "a [not 'the'] bona fide Empress Regnant" and omit "Chinese history" because it's obvious from context what place we are talking about. Madalibi (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 05:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean this as a direct translation, but as a paraphrase. Could you remove the quotation marks? Madalibi (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, removed. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 05:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luo Yuanzhen, another researcher on Wu, said that "someone from the socialist China would even acknowledge that Yuan was an empress regnant" when historians in feudal China did not. This is also unclear: "the socialist China" should be "socialist China"; Western historians of China basically never call pre-modern China "feudal" (封建); "would even acknowledge" doesn't make sense here; and it's not clear what the point of this contrast between "socialist" and "feudal" China is. Could you provide the original Chinese to see what his argument is?
    Original text: "对于成扬的说法，另一位研究武则天的专家罗元贞予以驳斥，他认为元氏的女皇帝地位连封建时代的史家都不承认，“在社会主义的新中国居然会有人承认”..." Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 15:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sounds like an appeal to ridicule more than an argument, so I don't think this is worth quoting. I would paraphrase as "even traditional Chinese historians did not call her a huangdi, so why should modern historians?" Madalibi (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Fixed, I rephrased the sentence such that it looks like an opinion rather than a quote. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 05:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luo quoted this as "unconventional fish for fame" (Chinese: 标新立异、沽名钓誉之一例) This is also unclear. "Luo quoted this": what is "this"? Is Luo speaking of Cheng Yang's argument or about something else? And "unconventional fish for fame" is not a good translation of the Chinese sentence that follows (标新立异、沽名钓誉之一例). You should probably stick to a paraphrase like "Luo argues that [this argument?] is far-fetched and insists that Wu Zetian..."
    "this" refers to the fact that '"someone from the socialist China would even acknowledge that Yuan was an empress regnant" when historians in feudal China did not.' I do not know how to explain the phrase, but it roughly means an example of making something new or odd out of something recognised, from what I decipher. And I admitted using Google Translate for that phrase. [1] Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 15:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Engines have lots of trouble with Chinese sentences that include 文言 structures, and about every character pair in this citation originally comes from classical Chinese texts! But once again I think this is not a strong argument, as it sounds more like an ad hominem than an actual point, so this may not be worth translating. Maybe you could say that Luo Yuanzhen rebukes Cheng Yang for using historical curiosities to revert common knowledge in order to make a name for himself (herself?)... Madalibi (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    After serious consideration, I decided to just omit the phrase, as I do not want to misinterpret someone's opinion and accuse Luo of attacking someone else. As his/her opinion about modern and ancient historians is stated, I think it is just as sufficient. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 05:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the family tree, the box with "Yuan" in it doesn't display properly.
    It is either a template problem or something wrong with the system. It is not a big issue here. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 15:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Display works fine on Internet Explorer, but not on Google Chrome. I'm not sure how this can be fixed, and I'm not sure this is an issue either. Let me think about this more. Madalibi (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If Wikipedia does not support certain browsers, it is common for this to happen. Also Wikipedia is non-profitable, so it might be a problem from MediaWiki. Perhaps a change of templates would help? Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 05:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
More fixes issues
    • The topic of reliable sources and original research is delicate here, as all the sources—texts like the Book of Wei (one of the Twenty-Four Histories) and the Zizhi Tongjian—are works that usually serve as primary sources for historians of China. I'm ready to accept that they are secondary sources, albeit very old ones. I think we should use such sources mostly when no other reliable sources (in English or in Chinese) are available. This article presents lots of information that can't be found anywhere else, so I think it's legitimate to cite these old history books. But we have to be very careful! Depending on the kind of information we seek, these texts may be either reliable or unreliable. The key is whether they are being used to propose interpretations of facts and events, or just to report facts and events. When your sources project intentions on the people involved, or when they pass judgments on certain people's lifestyles, we start hearing the personal voice of these old historians, and these sources stop being reliable sources. For example:
  • Empress Dowager Hu "led a promiscuous life". We should not accept Sima Guang's judgment of "淫乱肆情" as fact. The article on Empress Dowager Hu in the Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Women[2] explains the issue like this: As they frequently did when documenting the lives of female rulers, the historians offered details of Empress Dowager Hu's personal life, including her sex life. She is said to have had a number of lovers, including a brother-in-law, and several of her lovers, such as Zheng Yan and Li Shengui, wielded enormous power. She had an affair with Counselor-in-Chief Tuoba Yi, who was then murdered by her brother-in-law. In speaking of this period, her official biography began to cast her in the role of the "Last Bad Ruler" of Northern Wei, emphasizing her immorality, lack of personal restraint, neglect of government affairs, and her jealousy. We could, however, say that traditional Chinese historians portrayed the empress dowager as licentious. We face the same problem with "eliciting disgust from officials and from her son": disgust is a strong word, and it is not referenced. The Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Women speaks of "widespread dissatisfaction", which sounds like more neutral wording.
     Fixed, changed choice of words. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 10:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, but "she was said" followed by "according to" is redundant. Also, the secondary source I cited should appear in the footnote, both because it explains what traditional historical works said about the empress's lifestyle, and because it uses the expression "widespread dissatisfaction", which you have inserted into the text! Madalibi (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed,  Done, thanks! Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 05:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the people were shocked by the quick change of a monarch": this is taking an emphatic statement from the Book of Wei (天下愕然) as fact. And because the interpretation of Tianxia as "the people" is unwarranted, the unreferenced sentence that follows (They [implied: "the people"] believed that Empress Dowager Hu had murdered Emperor Xiaoming.) is therefore dubious. I would say either reference it or delete it altogether.
    As this statement from the Book of Wei is unnecessary (where the paragraph is to describe Erzhu's intention) and the purpose is unclear, I have removed this fact from the article. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 11:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you give a source for the daughter's date of birth as 12 February 528?
    I cited Zhizhi Tongjian, vol. 152 and Book of Wei, vol. 9 as my sources. They mentioned that the girl was born on the day of Yichou 乙丑, which referred to 12 February 528. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 12:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I didn't notice it was already there elsewhere. Now could you cite the year and month to go with the yichou 乙丑 day? (It's Wutai, first month.) Otherwise the note is insufficient to support the date. Madalibi (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say they are wrong too! :) But this is not important enough to insist, and some reliable sources may even be against me, so just forget about it. Madalibi (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's good to use Chinese sources on topics for which there is no English-language literature available, but the author name and the book title should be translated so that readers know what's going on. Could you do that for note 25 (author name and publisher's name)? Notes 31 and 32 should also be translated in their entirety (author name, article or chapter name, etc.). For note 33, you should at least give the pinyin for what appears to be a chapter title in the Romance of the Northern and Southern Dynasties, as well as the Chinese characters for Cai Dongfan.
    Are you referring to all references or just the notes mentioned above for author and publisher name? Most of the references lacks author name (except modern references). Also, what is the need for Chinese characters for Cai Dongfan when this is the English Wikipedia? As for the chapter title,  Done. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 10:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean all the notes I mentioned. There should not be anything unreadable to people who don't know Chinese. Don't get me wrong: keep the Chinese, but translate author names, titles, and publishing information. The note numbers have changed, so don't look at my list above. 宋其蕤 and 史海阳 should have a pinyin Romanization. Same thing for 罗元贞 and 成扬, whose article titles and publishing information should also be translated. As for Cai Dongfan, yes this is English Wikipedia, but if you insert a red link, it's customary to insert Chinese characters next to the pinyin name so that someone can look up that Chinese name and start the new article if they want to. This is not obligatory, but it helps other editors, as well as readers who can read Chinese. If you want, you can check how I did it in Shunzhi Emperor and Jin campaigns against the Song Dynasty (just look for the redlinks). Madalibi (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your translation of 《魏书·皇后列传·宣武灵皇后传》 as "Book of Wei — Biographies of Empresses — Records of Empress Ling", you translate zhuan 傳 as "biographies" and then as "records": it should be "biographies" and "biography". This comment applies to several notes.
     Done. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 11:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you just deleted "Records of Empress Ling". Could you reinsert that where necessary and replace with "Biography of Empress Dowager Ling"? Madalibi (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that so? But there is only one inline citation for that source. See note 16. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 06:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you refer to the "Basic Annals" (本紀) of the Book of Wei, you only give the chapter number (chapter 9), but when you refer to biographies, you usually give the chapter title but not the chapter number, though sometimes you simply say "chapter 13". For the sake of consistency (and to do it like it's done in English-language scholarship), you should indicate the chapter number in all case. For the biographies, it should go like this: Book of Wei, ch. XX, "Biography of Empress Ling". This comment also applies to several notes.
    Mostly  Done, on those originally with chapter number only. By the way, if you refer to this Chinese article, I thought it meant that those without chapter numbers are annexes or something like that. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 13:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 18 only gives Zizhi tongjian without a chapter number.
    Hi, the fact that she issued the edict "a few hours later" (original text: 才一天不到, l. less than one day) was actually referenced from 《魏书·肃宗纪》 and 《资治通鉴》, where the source from 《魏书·宣武灵皇后传》 actually says that she dethroned the infant only "several days later" (Original text: 经数日). So I do not know which to quote. So I do not know the volumes/"chapters" that are referenced as I did not find them myself. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 12:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand what you mean... Where did you find them? Madalibi (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on this, I clarified the footnotes to explain this. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 12:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 19 refers to "Records of Suzong". Because there is no chapter number, I can't tell if this is his biography (傳) or the basic annals (本紀) of his reign? Same problem with note 20.
    Note 20 is not referring to the same work as Note 19. Note 19 is referenced from 《魏书·肃宗纪》 and note 20 is referenced from 《北史·魏本纪第四·肃宗孝明皇帝纪》. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 10:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Same problem" meant I don't know if these are in the "Basic Annals" chapters or the "Biographies". I see that in both cases it's the "Basic Annals" (本纪). This is what I want you to add to the footnote. A page number to a reliable edition would be even better, but I'll take care of that later. Madalibi (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Fixed. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 08:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • I think all the major aspects are covered. I'm just a bit hesitant about focus, because some sections (most notably "Birth" and "Dethronement") contain digressions on Empress Dowager Hu that break the narrative. One good way to solve this problem would be to create a new section to explain the historical background of the events that are recounted in the article. That section could tell us what we need to know about Emperor Xiaoming and his relation to Empress Dowager Hu. The rest of the story would become clearer, and the main narrative would not be cluttered by these asides on the dowager.
      I can of course create a new section to explain the background. But there was not much fact about her to talk about, especially when historical sources mentioned her briefly with focus surrounding Emperor Xiaoming or Empress Dowager Hu. This will cause sections to be short. Shall I proceed with having a new section? Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 08:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • There are no images, but images are not a requirement for GAs.
  5. Overall: This is an interesting article on a little-known aspect of Chinese history. It would be nice to see this promoted. The article needs a lot of work, but mostly on wording, structure, and reference format. This means there is nothing that cannot be surmounted, so I'm putting this on hold to give the nominator time to make the necessary improvements! Madalibi (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass/Fail:
Nominator's reply: I have noted the issues addressed and will fix them soon. --Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 14:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so I have replied for each issue that you raised for the reasonable well written part and will look into other parts in a day or two. I fixed some of the issues and asked questions for those that I do not understand. The article is a translation from the corresponding Chinese article, so do refer to the Chinese text for doubts in the choice and use of words. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 15:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replied for each issue addressed for the factually accurate and verifiable part. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 13:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few more issues with the article that I would like to address before promoting to GA, but I will do that tomorrow! Madalibi (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New (and last) round of comments[edit]

HYH.124: Here is a new round of comments, which will also be the last. This time I paid careful attention to the Chinese text cited in the references to see if it supports the information presented in the article. I found more issues than expected, so the new list ended up being quite long...

  • Note 3, an article on Yuan Cha, is a phony publication that simply copies the Wikipedia article on Yuan Cha. Because Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself, that reference should be removed.
    • Hi, it was actually a book and not any "article". You do not assume that the book was violating Wikipedia's copyright just because the book cannot be previewed. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 13:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I mean is that this "book" consists of "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles", as it presents itself. The text that follows is copied from the Wikipedia article on Yuan Cha! Anyway that sentence already has a source, so I deleted this one. Madalibi (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • She eliminated all who disagreed with her rule...: the text says 太后多以事害焉, so "all" is exaggerated.
    • "She eliminated who disagreed with her rule" does not sound correct either... "Eliminated all" means she eliminated those who disagreed with her rule. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 08:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rephrased to "successfully eliminated many of her opponents". Madalibi (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • according to some historians in ancient China: this is too vague, as well as misplaced in the sentence. Could you review the note about this issue above and refer to the secondary source instead? If you want to refer to official histories, you could say "According to the Book of Wei, an official history of the Wei dynasty compiled by...., the Empress Dowager...."
  • Please add characters for Yuan Yi.
  • Emperor Xiaoming gathered the people to oppose her...: "the people" is too vague. Your source gives names like Yuan Cha and Liu Teng 劉騰. Yuan Cha should definitely be mentioned. And didn't Yuan Cha have the Empress Dowager removed from her post? This should also be mentioned, if only briefly, as well as the date of her return to power.
  • ...causing deep hatred from his mother: the text you cite only says 嫌隙屡起, which is nowhere near "deep hatred".
  • 胡氏多免黜: this part of the citation makes no sense on its own.
  • After several failed attempts to overthrow the empress dowager...: well the emperor and Yuan Cha succeeded in doing that after they killed Yuan Yi.
  • When she learned about the plot, she discussed strategies with the officials who supported her: only one official is mentioned here, so "the officials" will not do; more seriously, the passage from the Book of Wei that you cite after this sentence (郑俨虑祸，乃与太后计) does not support the information! Chapter 13 of the Book of Wei sas that when she heard that Erzhu Rong crossed the Yellow River she had her hair tonsured! You can probably find more specific information in other chapters of the Book of Wei.
  • As these events were occurring...: do we know when Erzhu Rong crossed the Yellow River?
  • diverting the attention of officials so she could secretly carry on her plan to kill the emperor: once again the context of the citation is different from what the text of the article is saying. 陰與太后謀鴆帝 means that Zheng Yan 鄭儼 and Xu He 徐紇 plotted with the empress because they knew Erzhu Rong was coming to Luoyang and were afraid that doom would fall upon them for having supported the dowager. Your source is not tying this to the daughter of Emperor Xiaoming as you do. Also here, Sima Guang was probably relying on the Book of Wei (ch. 13), which says that 肅宗之崩，事出倉卒，時論咸言鄭儼、徐紇之計. But instead of stating that court opinion attributed the emperor's death to Zheng's and Xu's plot, Sima Guang presents the plot as a certainty. And your text makes a connection Sima doesn't make, by tying the plot to the succession issue. "Diverting attention from officials" is just invented out of thin air!
  • The chapter number of 北史 is missing from note.
  • He was killed by Empress Dowager Hu, who colluded with officials from her faction to poison his wine: this is not what the sources say. Book of Wei says that most people at court attributed the emperor's death to Zheng Yan and Xu He (see previous point). Chapter 13 of History of the Northern Dynasties, simply says that Zheng Yan, fearing reprisals, plotted again to have the emperor poisoned (復陰行鴆毒). The next sentence simply states that, "on the second month of that year [Wutai 1], Emperor [Xiao]ming died suddenly" (其年二月，明帝暴崩). No connection is made between the plot and the emperor's death. Making such a link would probably constitute original research. You should stick very close to the sources and avoid drawing your own conclusions!
  • because the child was not yet a year old, the era name was not changed: can you find a reference for the claim that the reign name was not changed because the child was less than one year old? After all Yuan Zhao was more than one year old and his reign era Wutai was also not changed.
  • General comment: after reading the primary sources, I realize you barely mention any names. To give more flesh to the article, and for the sake of "completeness" (one of the criteria for GA), please add a few names! You should also add dates: when was Yuan Yi killed?
    • I noticed that your comments are so comprehensive that they can already be applied to FAs! I added Yuan Yi's death year and the source to support it. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 16:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yuan became the Emperor de jure: I missed this one on first reading. In the article's last section, you present the views of scholars who disagree with this claim, so you can't present this as a fact here, especially with no source to support it.
  • Just a few hours later...: if one of your sources says "a few days later", you can't choose to disregard it or confine it to a note. You should present the two statements even-handedly, perhaps concluding the Sima Guang chose to rely on the Book of Wei for this.
  • To exert her power as the highest ruler of Northern Wei, she addressed herself as Zhen...: the passage that supports this information talks about the beginning of Hu's regency, right after the ascension of Emperor Xiaoming in 515. This sentence doesn't belong here, but in the first section.
  • ...made officials address her as "Your Majesty"...: the Chinese text cited says that 羣[not"戝"]臣上書曰陛下, not that they were ordered to. This passage originally came from Book of Wei ch. 13. It was simply copied into Beishi 北史 ch. 13.
  • his son's death: her son's death?
  • The series of events involving his son's death and the installation of the infant girl and the three-year-old Yuan Zhao on the throne occurred to ensure the continuity of her regency.: this unreferenced sentence is actually best referenced by the sentence 钊始生三岁，太后欲久专政，故贪其幼而立之, which appears at the end of the first sentence of that paragraph.
  • two emperors at the same time: reference?
  • They were delivered to his camp at Heyin: I should have asked this before, but where is Heyin?
    • Isn't it "the south coast of the Yellow River"? Well, it is actually referring to the Heyin County. See [3]. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 08:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I remember seeing an English-language source giving the location. Maybe look up "Heyin" and "Erzhu Rong" on Google Books? Madalibi (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erzhu later massacred over two thousand officials: this sounds a bit dry. Officials who had helped the empress dowager? You are citing two secondary sources here: can you use them to flesh out this sentence a little?
  • "Heyin" refers to the south coast of the Yellow River: reference?
    • How can I cite sources to notes that are shown as footnotes?
      • Have you tried using the usual note format? Madalibi (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gao Huan and Yuwen Tai were generals during the Erzhu Rong era who respectively controlled Eastern Wei and Western Wei following the split of the dynasty, while Erzhu controlled the northern part of the empire: you should probably put this in the text rather than in a note (with a reference of course).
  • Official historical records have never listed her as a legitimate sovereign because she was a puppet under Empress Dowager Hu and reigned for less than a day. You need a reference for this explanation.
  • Criteria of notability for academics are fairly stringent (see WP:NACADEMICS), so I doubt these two researchers would deserve their own article: remove red links under Cheng Yang and Luo Yuanzhen?
  • Romance of Dynasties (历朝通俗演义): 通俗 in that title should also be translated.
  • Suzong, Emperor Xiaoming, Yuan Xu (510-518): should be 528
  • I don't think the lists of longest reigning monarchs and emperors belongs in the "See also".
  • Chapter numbers are missing from notes 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 29. Madalibi (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @HYH.124: In the current (25 May 2014) version of the article, chapter numbers are missing from notes 18, 20, 21, and 32. Madalibi (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've come too far to stop, so let's work on this new set of issues so that we can finally promote the article! Madalibi (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Madalibi: Some comments resolved, some replied. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 09:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HYH.124, and thank you for making all these modifications! I'm a bit busy in real life, so I might need a few days to check them all out. In the mean time, feel free to continue on your improvements. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conversation
Hi, Madalibi, some of the issues are fixed, and I decided to leave the GA nomination aside for other users to work on. You are free to make improvements to the article and promote it to GA/FA status if you wish. You may also end this nomination (by passing or failing it).
Providing previous revisions which I (or other Wikipedians) deleted: 09:28, 5 December 2013 (Under References section, sources used are listed below inline citations) and 01:58, 17 November 2013 (the full text of the edict as well as the overview below is provided). Thanks! Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 06:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be too bad to give up to give up when you're so close! I suggest you take a two-day break and come back to this when you're well rested. I know there are a lot of issues, but they are mostly minor, so there's no reason to be discouraged! Madalibi (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the issues you mentioned are regarding the referencing format and the unsourced part of the article, which I have no resources to work with. And for translating of names of archaic works, other users might be able to translate them correctly. You are right, but since the article is so close to GA status, and Wikipedia is a collaborative project, other Wikipedians might be able to cite more reliable sources for the article and promote it as GA/FA. I am still a student and am busy with my studies and am afraid that I might not have time for the nomination. I am not actually giving up but trying not to suffer from Wikipediholism! Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 07:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see from the level of detail of my comments above, I'm already suffering from Wikipediholism! I do understand you reasoning. But most of the new problems are about wording, so they should be easy to solve. Some people leave reviews open for weeks, so there's no rush to complete this right away. I will work on some of these issues myself. But I don't want to get the credit for myself when you're the main editor and nominator of this article, so I'm leaving the review open to give you time to come back to it. Once all the issues have been addressed, we will be close to FA level. And the FA review should actually be much easier than this one, because I think I've caught most of the article's sourcing problems here, and there's little chance that FA reviewers will be more thorough than I was. So cheers and see you around! Madalibi (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I will find time to fix them! Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 08:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The result was not listed. HYH.124 (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daughter_of_Emperor_Xiaoming_of_Northern_Wei/GA2&oldid=610043209"