Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Government of the Han Dynasty/archive1
From 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 promoted by Karanacs 21:27, 26 May 2009 [1].
Government of the Han Dynasty[edit]
- Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because it has passed GA status (one important hurdle), meets all the criteria for a Featured Article, and is presently being copyedited by two of the most outstanding members of the Guild of Copyeditors, User:Baffle gab1978 and User:Scapler. With their work, the prose will be that much more brilliant!--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good stuff. Thanks for letting me know.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: No shortage of footnotes certainly, but the overt desire to provide sources for every and each assertion backfires in that the text remains largely descriptive, with some heavily referenced passages even appearing somewhat synthetical, while the general line of reasoning often appears to be rather abruptly changing direction. Since the origins of the Han bureaucracy actually lay in the Qin administrative system, the first imperial dynasty, their inclusion would be detrimental for understanding the Han development. Although I am not much into format and lay-out questions, I found the long lists rather unhelpful in a featured candidate, more so since there is little explanation attached to them (esp. the 1st). Also, links in the lead like volunteer army are unnecessarily provided again below. Finally, the references appear decidedly outdated, not a single monograph on the topic included which was published later than the 1980s. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Uh, given that this is written about a subject 1800-2200 years ago scholarly sources which were written on the subject merely 20-30 years ago are still completely credible. It shouldn't matter if the book was written in 1908 or 2008 they are all obviously inciteful books into this subject. Often the best books on subjects like this are indeed older. The sources shouldn't be considered "dated" unless therehas been anumber of completely new discoveries or something which make the old books redundant. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing wrong with having the same link in the lead section and then again in the article's main body. However, it is against Wiki guidelines to repeat links in the main body of text. The lead and main body are considered separate in this regard. Wikipedia:Linking states (bolding my own emphasis): "Link only the first occurrence of an item. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own.)" I rest my case.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, could you point out where these "long lists" are? I can't seem to find them. Are you referring to the tables I constructed for salaries and then military officer titles? I wouldn't mind getting rid of the military officer titles; it does seem a bit extraneous. But the salary table is actually quite helpful and illustrative of what is found in the text of that particular section.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point about the Qin Dynasty, although to be fair to myself, I did mention the Han inheriting aspects of the Qin system in the sections "Provincial Authorities" and "Kingdoms, Marquisates, and Fiefs of Princesses" in this article. To address this point of yours, which I think is a very serious one, I have recently added two new paragraphs to the article which clarify Qin's role as a model for Han's imperial system of government. I also made a counter point to this to show how Han's imperial system was different from that of Qin's. I believe this should be sufficient.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does a source's publication in the 50s, 60s, 70s, or 80s make it an unusable source? That sounds a bit unreasonable. Especially since the topic is about an ancient government that existed two millenniums ago. Also, are you sure you thoroughly checked the dates of the sources that I used? From a quick glance I see Crespigny (2007), Chang (2007), Di Cosmo (2002), and Wagner (2001), although I will admit that their books did not focus solely on the Han government. However, Crespigny devotes a lot of space in his book to a section on government, and I cited Crespigny as heavily as Bielenstein and Wang. Moreover, I found no discrepancies between older sources and Crespigny's on any overlapping points covered. <Sarcasm> Older sources be damned if they are not reliable anymore! I think we should follow Gun Powder Ma's lead on this and purge everything at Wikipedia which cites a source dated before 1990. That ought to eliminate half of Wikipedia's content, but only the bad half, according to him. </Sarcasm> Lol. However, in light of your concern, I just cited a few new sources in the article: Loewe (1994), Ebrey (1999), Hansen (2000), Hinsch (2002), and Csikszentmihalyi (2006). Are these sources new and fresh enough for you? They even have that "new book smell" still. Hah.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You write: "the text remains largely descriptive". Oh come, come now. We've been over this before. Read the article again; you will find an appropriate balance of description and analysis. Gasp! Yes, I said it: analysis. I came prepared this time since I knew you would bring this up once again. You cannot argue that there is a lack of analysis in the article; I go into thorough detail about power structure, authority, the purpose behind each official's role, and the level of interaction and competing interests amongst certain officials (and even eunuchs), not merely a bare-bones job description of the emperor and each official and officer. Just to be safe, I also added further analysis about the emperor's religious role and the Mandate of Heaven (as discussed in Society and culture of the Han Dynasty already). In regards to my desire to see other reviewers' input on the matter, it's like that old saying goes: "Doctor, no offense, but I'd like to get a second opinion." In other words, I'll get a diagnosis of this article from another doctor, thank you very much.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does a source's publication in the 50s, 60s, 70s, or 80s make it an unusable source? That sounds a bit unreasonable. Especially since the topic is about an ancient government that existed two millenniums ago. Also, are you sure you thoroughly checked the dates of the sources that I used? From a quick glance I see Crespigny (2007), Chang (2007), Di Cosmo (2002), and Wagner (2001), although I will admit that their books did not focus solely on the Han government. However, Crespigny devotes a lot of space in his book to a section on government, and I cited Crespigny as heavily as Bielenstein and Wang. Moreover, I found no discrepancies between older sources and Crespigny's on any overlapping points covered. <Sarcasm> Older sources be damned if they are not reliable anymore! I think we should follow Gun Powder Ma's lead on this and purge everything at Wikipedia which cites a source dated before 1990. That ought to eliminate half of Wikipedia's content, but only the bad half, according to him. </Sarcasm> Lol. However, in light of your concern, I just cited a few new sources in the article: Loewe (1994), Ebrey (1999), Hansen (2000), Hinsch (2002), and Csikszentmihalyi (2006). Are these sources new and fresh enough for you? They even have that "new book smell" still. Hah.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point about the Qin Dynasty, although to be fair to myself, I did mention the Han inheriting aspects of the Qin system in the sections "Provincial Authorities" and "Kingdoms, Marquisates, and Fiefs of Princesses" in this article. To address this point of yours, which I think is a very serious one, I have recently added two new paragraphs to the article which clarify Qin's role as a model for Han's imperial system of government. I also made a counter point to this to show how Han's imperial system was different from that of Qin's. I believe this should be sufficient.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, could you point out where these "long lists" are? I can't seem to find them. Are you referring to the tables I constructed for salaries and then military officer titles? I wouldn't mind getting rid of the military officer titles; it does seem a bit extraneous. But the salary table is actually quite helpful and illustrative of what is found in the text of that particular section.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing wrong with having the same link in the lead section and then again in the article's main body. However, it is against Wiki guidelines to repeat links in the main body of text. The lead and main body are considered separate in this regard. Wikipedia:Linking states (bolding my own emphasis): "Link only the first occurrence of an item. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own.)" I rest my case.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Not quite finished reading, but it looks very good. A couple comments:
- In tables of data, I'd rather see a footer row with the source than a footnote in the header. See this done in saffron.
- Point of clarification: You write that the Emperor could appoint officials who made 600-shi or higher, and then later that the Chancellor could appoint those making 600-shi and below. This leaves an overlap right at the 600-shi level. Could either of them appoint, then?
- --Laser brain (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, both the Chancellor and Emperor could appoint an official at the 600-shi level; the only difference is who gets to appoint officials of higher or lower salary rank (which you've already pointed out).--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the method used in saffron. However, it uses the Harvard citation style, which is not the model used in this article. Any suggestions? Should I write out the entire source at the bottom instead of just having a footnote?--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. In that case, maybe the footnote is more appropriate. I just happen to like seeing the source of tabular data right there instead of having to click a footnote. --Laser brain (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the method used in saffron. However, it uses the Harvard citation style, which is not the model used in this article. Any suggestions? Should I write out the entire source at the bottom instead of just having a footnote?--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, both the Chancellor and Emperor could appoint an official at the 600-shi level; the only difference is who gets to appoint officials of higher or lower salary rank (which you've already pointed out).--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, it is beautifully-written and a fine addition to the others in the series. The use of wikilinks seems appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing the article! And giving it a clean bill of health. ;)--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The article well-written and thoroughly researched to relevant, reliable sources, including modern ones. The wikilinks are appropriately used and the article is interesting throoughout as well as complying with the MoS and FA criteria. Ricardiana (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Another gem from one of our best writers. This is the sort of article who want to throw in the face of Jorge Cauz everytime he dismisses wikipedia as "amateurish". My only concerns are the relevance of some of the images. They are all beautiful but in parts some of them seem unrelated to the text. Most of them seem OK though. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent! Thank you Ricardiana and Blofeld for reviewing the article! I'm glad that you both enjoyed the read.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - An excellent, well-referenced article filled with all of the information and analysis anyone could ever want on this subject. However, the table of military titles at the end seems like a bit much. Have you considered removing it?--Danaman5 (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I have (see above), and you know what? I will. Right now. Thanks for reviewing the article!--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And poof! The annoying table is magically gone! Lol. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I have (see above), and you know what? I will. Right now. Thanks for reviewing the article!--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to niggling image issues that need to be resolved before passing:
File:OrdosRegion.jpg: move this to Wikipedia as {{PD-1923}}. Copyrights of joint-works subsist till the last living person and Robert Sterling Clark has not died more than 70 years.- I have marked it as a copyvio. I have also moved it to Wikipedia as File:Map of Ordos Region, 1908-9.jpg; you can use this. Jappalang (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Nswag, dinastia han, cavallo e cavaliere.JPG: needs a better description than "see filename" and a source better than "my camera"- File:Terrakottaarmén.jpg: where was this taken?
File:Cernuschi Museum 20060812 053.jpg: why is the uploader Guillaume Jacquet in this photo (and others like this) but Georges Seguin in others (such as this and this)? (Uploader contacted.[2])File:Wu Family Shrine chariots and horses.jpg: need the advice of others. The source (the carvings from this rubbing is made from) is in public domain, but I wonder if the rubbing (derivative as it can be) can gain a degree of copyright through creative applications of pressure during the rubbing... I am not certain either if rubbings qualify for PD-Art (after all the original work is 3D).Brought up for discussion at commons:Village pump#Copyright status of rubbings?.
Awaiting feedback and actions. Jappalang (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I got rid of the Ordos Desert map image, fixed the description and source name in the cavalry picture, replaced the Terracotta Army picture with a better version, and I will wait and see about the Cernuschi Museum OTRS, as well as what others say about rubbings. However, in the meantime I have replaced the Cernuschi image and removed the rubbing picture. I believe that addresses each one of your concerns.--Pericles of AthensTalk 12:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.