Talk:Hö'elün/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 13:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this on for review, thanks for submitting this for the Women in Green edit-a-thon! As per my usual reviewing style, I'll start with section-by-section comments, followed by a check against the GA criteria.

Comments

Early life and initial marriages

• Any reason why "Qonggirad" is spelt this way and not "Khongirad"?

• Prevalence in sources used.

• Spotcheck: [2] Verified, although "unusually beautiful" should probably be put in quotation, as it's what's said exactly in the source.

• Done/

• Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
• Think "However," should be dropped, per MOS:EDITORIAL.

• Done.

• Spotcheck: [8] "Because of the event's taboo and dubious nature," doesn't appear to be supported by the source. The rest of the sentence is in there, but I'm not sure where this interpretation has come from.

• Good check. Removed, appear to have synthed something.

• "Hö'elün however became Yesügei's primary wife," No need for the "however".

• I think there is a need—a later spouse usurping the previous senior wife's position is a contrast that should be highlighted.

• Fair enough. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [10] Verified.
• "either Dadal in Khentii Province or in southern Agin-Buryat Okrug, Russia" Suggest "either Dadal in the Khentii Province of modern-day Mongolia or in the southern Agin-Buryat Okrug of modern-day Russia", as these are modern administrative divisions.

• Khentii is not a modern division; it's as ancient as the Mongols. Done for the second.

• Ah my bad on Khentii. My issue was mostly with the second part anyway, so thanks for doing that. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Might be worth citing the sources on the years separately, just to make it more obvious which historian favours which year.

• I'd prefer not to, as they all outline the general dispute, and while Pelliot specifies a theory, the others don't with sufficient certainty.

• No worries. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• "an Asian folklorish motif" Hrm, "Asian" seems unspecific. Is this just from Mongol folklore, or is it used in other cultures too?

• Pelliot cites: Buddhist works such as the Sanskrit Ashokavadana and the Chinese Tsa-a-han-ching, the works of the Persian Abu al-Ghazi Bahadur, the Lamaism of Tibet and the shamanistic tribes of Upper Asia. I think Asian does fine.

• Perfect, thanks for the clarification. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Widowhood and third marriage

• Why is this section titled "Widowhood and third marriage"? It seems more chiefly characterised by her position as parent to Temüjin, rather than by either of her marriages.

• Changed

• Spotcheck: [22] Verified.
• "As the friction, exacerbated by regular disputes over the division of hunting spoils, intensified," Using both "exacerbated" and "intensified" is redundant.

• Removed the latter.

• "When Temüjin's married Börte" Shouldn't this just saw "Temüjin", not "Temüjin's"?

• Fixed.

• "would have conceded" Think just "conceded" is fine, if there's no speculation.

• There is, so "would have" kept.

• "although pregnant" Why "although"? Think that could be cut without issue.

Removed phrase.

• Try to keep focus on Hö'elün. I understand that her son is eminently important, but this article should be about her.

• It is about her—it is not her fault that she is defined in most sources by her relationship with her son. Do you have any instances of misplaced focus in mind? I've removed the bit about Temüjin's name, and a sentence about Belgutei, if that helps.

• That's great, thanks! --Grnrchst (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [35] Verified in Broadbridge 2018, p. 71, but couldn't find in Atwood 2004, p. 41. Is it on another page maybe?

• Missed out a "6". Thanks for checking.

• No bother. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• The Mongol unicode characters don't work for me, so I'm just getting replacement characters. Is there another way of displaying the Mongolian script?

• Is it better if it is turned horizontal? If not, no other way.

• Turning it horizontal at least fixes the formatting a bit, so that'll do. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Her date of death is unknown" Could mention that she would have died sometime after her son took power?

• That's implicit from the previous sentence—your personal life can't suffer if you're dead.

• No infobox?

• No need. What would it say? Name, floruit, not much else.

• Fair enough. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Do we not have any images of visual depictions of Hö'elün?

• Sadly not. Mongolia has a very harsh freedom of panorama law, so pictures of statues can't be uploaded to Commons.

• That's very unfortunate. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All good, prose-wise. There's one or two minor grammatical errors, noted above, but it's mostly fine.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   A couple cases of "however" that should be cut.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References are impeccably formatted and presented.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Everything is properly sourced with inline citations.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Found one case of apparent novel interpretation that should be addressed.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No apparent issues with copyvios, but found one case of close paraphrasing that should have quotation marks.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Covers her whole life from birth to death.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Some parts focus more on her son or husband, which could do with a wee rewrite to focus on her, but nothing major.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No issues with neutrality.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Major edits preceded the GA nomination, but nothing since then. Last reversion happened in May 2023.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Map is original work by an uploader, painting is in the public domain.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Images are both relevant, but if there exists an image of the subject, it should really be added.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article is very well put-together and something to be proud of. I did find a couple minor issues that are holding me back from quick-passing this, but think they could be easily fixed. @AirshipJungleman29: Ping me once you feel these have been addressed and I'll be happy to give it another look over. Nice work! --Grnrchst (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Grnrchst, thanks very much for the speedy review. Replies above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks for addressing everything so quickly and thoroughly, and for the explanations as well. I'm more than happy to pass this article now. Congrats! --Grnrchst (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.