Talk:Pax Mongolica/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I've provided a review against the Wikipedia:good article criteria below. I understand that you are not all fully Wikipedia experienced, so I'll do my best to explain things as clearly as possible without resorting to jargon. Also please be aware that although I have a reasonable degree of historical knowledge I am not a specialist on the Mongol Empire and thus will not be able to identify any minor factual errors in what you have written (hopefully your teacher is covering this aspect of the process). My role is to ensure that there are no glaring problems, that the prose and formatting are up to standard and that the article has been properly referenced and researched.

I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• "stabilizing effects of the conquest of the Mongol Empire" - I think you mean "conquests" as the ME is the subject, not the object of sentence.

done.--Seanmac33 (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• "followed the Mongol's flurry of conquests." - two problems here, firstly it should be "flurry of Mongol conquests" to scan properly and secondly I not sure flurry is the best word for the process of conquest.

done.--Seanmac33 (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Genghis Khan's Mongol tribe, thus diversifying the societal balance of the tribe." - repetition of tribe.

done.--Seanmac33 (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• "into a new global system" - its not really global, more continental.

done. --Seanmac33 (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• "competing and rivaling tribute gatherers" - "and rivaling" is used in the wrong context here, and is unnecessary anyway, I suggest cutting it.

done.--Seanmac33 (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• "accounted for the booming Mediterranean-Mongol trade, it was also Italian traders.[10] During the Pax Mongolica," I'm not comfortable with the way this sentence is constructed, perhaps "accounted for the booming Mediterranean-Mongol trade: during the Pax Mongolica," would work better, moving the citation to the end of the paragraph.

This sentence was a remnant of a passage that was deleted a while ago. I removed this sentence because it didn't fit well with the rest of the text. --Gxlarson (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• "to the Europeans" - cut "the"

done.--Seanmac33 (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Europeans sent silver, fine cloth, horses, linen, among other goods" - change "among" to "and"

done.--Seanmac33 (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• "His brothers Chagatai Khan and Tolui further extended his network as well as his nephew Batu Khan." - They didn't (I hope) extend the nephew, so it should read "His brothers Chagatai Khan and Tolui and his nephew Batu Khan further extended this network.

done--Seanmac33 (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You have removed the nephew bit, which makes it sound like Batu was a brother -which is it?--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

done. Gxlarson (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• "has even noted" - no need for "even" here (its not that surprising)

done.--Seanmac33 (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• "effectively govern their vast empire" - "govern their vast empire effectively" makes more sense here.

done.--Seanmac33 (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• "thought of as a financial bigot" - what does this mean?

done. --Seanmac33 (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Nawruz's power was pushed overboard when he assassinated General Ghazan" - overboard what? was he on a ship? I'm not sure what is meant here - did he become more or less powerful?

done. --Seanmac33 (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"This aided in the power of Nawruz" is poor English, perhaps you mean "This contributed to the growing power of Nawruz".--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

done --Gxlarson (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• "As the culture was changing, many ideas and rumors were created. Some people thought that the Chinese rulers were planning to kill Chinese children and perform sexual rituals on them. This caused a mass xenophobia. Acting from isolation, China cut herself off from the rest of the world trade system." - I'm confused, who thought that the Chinese rulers were killing Chinese babies? When Chinacut herself off, was that the ethnic Chinese, the Mongol rulers or both? This sentance needs to be heavily rewritten.

has this been addressed properly? Gxlarson (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"many ideas and rumors [poor English] were created. Some people [who?] thought that their Mongol masters were planning to kill Chinese children and perform sexual rituals on them. This caused a mass xenophobia [firstly, xenophonbia is not a noun, secondly, in what form?]. Acting from isolation [isolation is not a verb], China [who, Chinese people or rulers?] cut herself off from the rest of the world trade system" - still many problems, see notes.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten much of this passage. Please see if it is better. --Gxlarson (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• "and the Chinese culture was at a standstill." - unclear, what does this mean?

how's this -- Gxlarson (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done some heavy tidying on the section, and added a tag.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

A citation has been added. --Gxlarson (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• "During the early years of the Ming Dynasty trade decline can clearly be seen." - well, no it can't beacuse it happened a long time ago. You need to be more precise in this kind of writing, i.e. "During the early years of the Ming Dynasty trade [with who?] declined."

done. Gxlarson (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• "many once-economic powerhouses" - you mean "many former economic powerhouses" or "many once-strong economic powerhouses"

done. Gxlarson (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• "European powers such as Portugal and Spain to emerge hegemonic in the world trade system." - although I know what it means, and I am usually against any such "dumbing down", I suggest that this sentance is simplified for the general reader. (This one is not essential)

addressed. Gxlarson (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• There were two points where I'd like to see references added. I have marked these with tags.

done Gxlarson (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• An issue here, and I'm afraid it is something of a complex one for new editors. You have cited a number of pages in various books more than once. When this happens, to avoid confusion and reduce the space the references take up a system is used that merges all references to the same place into a single reference at the bottom (see one of my recent articles Battle of the Nile for an example). What you do, is to add the code <ref name="name"> to the first use of that citation instead of the usual <ref>. Then change where it says "name" to a simple code for that particular reference (e.g. Michael Prawdin. The Mongol Empire: Its rise and legacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2006. Print. p.350. could have the code "MP350"). Once this is done, go to every occassion when the identical reference appears and change it to <ref name="name"/> (e.g. <ref name="MP350"/>). This will merge all identical references into one reference at the bottom of the page, making it easier to follow and saving space on the article. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Footnote system for more details, although I know that page can be quite intimidating.

done (I think I did this right...) Gxlarson (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work, although you missed one (Weatherford, p. 28). Also make sure that you are consistent in the formatting, i.e I don't mind if it is written as p.28 or p. 28 (with a space), as long as all sources are consistent.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• "It was said that a naked woman carrying a sack of gold" - by who? name them in the text and put quote marks around it if it is a directly transliterated quote.

done (I think). (That line was not written by us. But I changed the quotation to something that was commonly said about the Pax Mongolica. Both works cited provide this quotation, but they do not say who it was by; they say that it was "commonly said that '...'") Gxlarson (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Can you give a very brief summary of the major Mongol conquests, with dates in the second paragraph of "Foundations". This does not need to be long or complicated, just enough to give a reader unfamiliar with the expansion of the Empire a quick idea of how far it grew and how fast.

• This has to be properly sourced before it is ready. You also have to link all the empires, battles and people mentioned and remove the last sentence - it doesn't make sense where it is.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just had another thought, sorry. Can you explain to me (on this review page initially) when the term Pax Mongolica was coined? It says in the lead that it was created as a counterpart to Pax Romana (which makes sense), but was it a construct created at the time, in later histories or in recent years (i.e. 20th century)? If answers can be found to this question then maybe it can be added to the article later, but for now I am just curious.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am curious about this as well: I have never read anything about the actual coining of the term (i.e. who first used/presented the term, when...). I don't think it was coined when Pax Romana was coined by Gibbon. The earliest use of the term I have encountered is in Michael Prawdin's The Mongol Empire, and he uses Pax Tatarica instead of Mongolica. His bibliography cites works from the 19th and early 20th centuries, but many are in foreign languages. It is my opinion that the term is either a 20th or 19th century phenomena. Gxlarson (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting, thanks. Since there is no source it will have to stay out of the article for now, but I appreciate you summarising the main points.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It would certainly be great to find sources describing origins of the term "Pax Mongolica". According to GBooks, there is one and only one use of this term in the 19th century: [1], same for "Pax Tatarica" [2] (please remember that GBooks is not yet complete). Then long noting till 1930s ([3]), and from then on, the term grows in popularity: [4], [5]. Google Scholar records the first instances of the term being used for 1940s: [6]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

You will be pleased to know that I now think this article is ready to pass GA. Please note that this source is unlikely to pass Wikipedia's bar for reliable sources, but I consider this a secondary point at this stage and will not delay the article's promotion for it. When it can be replaced with something more reliable then please do so.

I also note that this article does not seem to be suffering any copyright violations as some of the others are - certainly in regard to web-based sources at least. If anyone has copied directly from a book then please let me know at once - this is plagarism and copyright violation, two things that Wikipedia takes very seriously indeed and any such instance will have to be removed as soon as possible. I don't think this is a problem with this article, but if it has happened and I have missed it then please admit it so that it can be dealt with.

On a brighter note, this is a well-written and well-researched article about a slightly obscure topic, but I think it does a very good job and your polite and speedy responses were much appreciated. Regards, and good luck with your course.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)