Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Economy of the Han Dynasty/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 21:05, 19 May 2009 [1].

Economy of the Han Dynasty edit

Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 14:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Well, it looks like Han Dynasty (a FAC of mine that is still located here) has received much support and I have substantially addressed reviewer's concerns. I nominate this article because it has already passed the Good Article "smell test", if you will. It's a small, manageable article that I believe meets all the FA criteria. Prove to me otherwise (I'm sure someone will)! Cheers.Pericles of AthensTalk 14:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've done a quick look over the article, and I think there is one thing that can be fixed right off the bat.
  • Support I've been very busy lately and forgot to add my support!Zeus1234 (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, The quotations below the photos are too long. On my computer, the quotations from the last two photos are so long that they push the reference section to the right of my screen. Not pretty. Please shorten them and provide description of the item, not an explanation (which can be in the article itself). Instead of giving a huge explanation of the Roman plate, just say something like "a Roman plate similar to this was found in China." I'll read through the article in its totality soon and give you feedback.Zeus1234 (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just significantly shortened the descriptions of both those pictures. If that wasn't enough to stop the picture caption text from running into the "Notes" section, I added a small "See also" section with two relevant links not yet found in the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 07:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing... What do you mean in this sentence: "After the central government failed to provide local governments with provisions during the locust swarm and flooding of the Yellow River in 153 CE, many landless peasants became retainers of large landowners in exchange for aid." Which locust swarm are you talking about? Was it significant enough to merit the 'the' in front of it? Is the swarm related to the flooding? Perhaps this should be clarified.
"Subsequent governments of the Three Kingdoms established there on agricultural colonies on these models." This sentence doesn't make sense.
"Han historians such as Sima Qian (145–86 BCE) and Ban Gu (32–92 CE)—as well as the later historian Fan Ye (398–445 CE)—preserved in their writings the Han merchants' various enterprises and products; this is supplemented by archaeological evidence." So 'various enterprises and products' were inside the writings of these men? How would they fit in the books? I don't think a book is large enough to hold a bowl. Please clarify that the writings mention the types of products used, and clarify. Zeus1234 (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That one sentence was originally worded: Agricultural colonies were also established by the subsequent governments of the Three Kingdoms, but it was recently changed by User:Scapler. I fixed the sentence by removing the "there on"; I believe it is now grammatically correct.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the sentence about the historians and Han merchants' products. A funny mistake indeed! Also, about the swarms of locusts and floods, I don't know what you need clarification for. Ebrey (1986) simply says that a gigantic locust swarm occurred simultaneously with a flood along the Yellow River in 153 CE. She says that the central government was unable to provide local governments with adequate provisions for these concurrent disasters, and merely ordered the local governments to handle them. She writes that these disasters forced an estimated hundreds of thousands of peasants to become wandering vagrants. These landless farmers thus turned to rich landowners for aid, shelter, and tenant work. Does my article not make this clear?--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix it. It think it just needs to be reworded a bit.Zeus1234 (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting the article! That's fine, we're all busy sometimes.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech. Review
  • Nanyang
  • Retainer
  • Tenant--Truco 21:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Truco. All three of those links are now fixed. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone want to review the article?--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comments. The article is close to FA standards, but I noticed a few problems:
    1. In the lead
      had periods of economic stability and disaster. The article says nothing about economic disasters. I suggest "had periods of economic prosperity and decline".
      The government oversaw huge public works projects; upkeep of these roadways and bridges not only aided official government ventures, but also facilitated commercial growth. An awkward sentence. It implies that "roadways and bridges" were "public works projects", but does not say this directly. I suggest "The government oversaw construction of roadways and bridges, which not only aided official government ventures, but also facilitated commercial growth."
    2. In the gallery of coins, what were the masses of the first two items (coins of Lu Zhi and Wen)? Were they 5.7 g and 2.6 g? The third item is a lead coin of Wu. However lead coins are not mentioned in the text.
    3. I suggest renaming "Landowners, tenants, hired laborers, and landless peasants" subsection to "Landowners and peasants". Such a long title is unnecessary.
    4. In "tax reforms and conscription" subsection the caption of the second image reads: "... century BCE; peasants aged twenty-three could be drafted into the armed forces as either cavalrymen, infantrymen, or naval marine sailors". However this is a repetition of the text, which already says that "Male peasants aged twenty-three were drafted into the military (zhengzu 正卒) and assigned to one of three branches of the armed forces: infantry, cavalry, or naval marine". Please, remove.
    5. I suggest renaming "Merchants and regulations" subsection into simply "Merchants".
    6. The subsection "Construction projects and labor" would be better called "Public construction projects".
    7. written characters of the Fan Shengzhi shu (氾勝之書) written during the reign of Emperor Cheng of Han (33–7 BCE) I think it is unnecessary to use the word "written" twice in the same sentence. It is fairly obvious that "written characters" were "written".
    8. In the Foreign trade and tributary exchange" subsection:
      In the caption of the second image the phrase foreign countries sent tributary items like rhinoceroses to the Han Chinese court. is unnecessary as it basically repeats the text.
      Han envoys brought gifts of sheep, gold, and silk ... I find it is strange that these goods are called "gifts". They were used "as a means to pay for food and lodging".
Ruslik (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: I find it is strange that these goods are called "gifts". They were used "as a means to pay for food and lodging". I believe that this is a simple misunderstanding of the passage. The full passage says:

Once the Han established their diplomatic presence in the Tarim Basin of Central Asia during Emperor Wu of Han's reign (141–87 BCE), Han envoys brought gifts of sheep, gold, and silk to the urban oasis city-states allegedly worth billions of coin cash.[105] When envoys arrived in these states, they sometimes used gold as currency, but silk was favored as a means to pay for food and lodging.[105]

Nowhere in this passage is a link made between the gifts that were given to these city-states and the gold or silk used as currency to pay for food and lodging. These are two entirely separate things: diplomatic gifts versus a means to pay for food and lodging. One is a gesture of goodwill and diplomacy, the other is simply the unrelated business aspect of traveling (i.e. providing goods and services in exchange for gold or luxury commodities such as silk).--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have amended the article according to all of your suggestions except for one. You wrote: "In the gallery of coins, what were the masses of the first two items (coins of Lu Zhi and Wen)? Were they 5.7 g and 2.6 g? The third item is a lead coin of Wu. However lead coins are not mentioned in the text." Well, I'd love to be able to give you an answer, but Gary Lee Todd's site (i.e. the one I cited here for the pictures) simply does not provide the weights for these coins, only the diameters. I am the one who constructed the OTRS license for Gary Lee Todd pictures and am in contact with Prof. Gary Lee Todd via email. Should I ask him through email to update his site to include info on coin weights? That seems a bit pushy considering it's only for a Wikipedia project, but if you absolutely insist (or oppose the article over this), I can go bug him about it. As for the lead coin, that's also from Gary's site, of course. However, Nishijima says nothing about Wu's lead coins before the monopoly and the wushu coin. If it is any compensation for lack of info on lead coins, I just added info to the article explaining other various currencies of Wu's early reign, including tin-silver coins and white deerskin token money notes.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that the masses of coins are fairly obvious. I am not going to oppose over this issue though. As to gifts I still find these claims bizarre (goods worth billions of coins to locals? or to bribe local officials?), and think that ancient chronicles were not a fair description of reality. Ruslik (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Perhaps you are right. Although Liu (1988) says so, I will strike the comment until other sources verify. After all, this is all alleged in ancient court records (perhaps exaggerated to show China's economic strength). Plus, the fact that roughly no more than 220 million coins were minted in a single year, how could one year's worth of tribute amount to anything over a billion coin cash? I hope the recent removal of that statement satisfies you.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still "gift" sounds as if Chinese authorities acted like a charity. Ruslik (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • can you make the lead 3 paragraphs?
  • "economic prosperity and decline" - internal link to economic cycle
  • "Many peasants fell into.." - a percent or another approximation is better
  • "From his website, Gary Lee Todd (Ph.D. in History from Univer" - typically, this type of info can be found in the source. any justification for stating this?
  • "..in an effort to curb the power of nobles" - is this an assumption or did "Shang Yang" actually said this??
  • "now landless and in the service of" - did the "great landowners" not have control over the "peasantry" because the wording changed to "in the service of"
  • "made efforts to ease the plight of struggling small landowners" - the whole article has this bias. please fix it.
  • "There were two categories of merchants.." - only two? where did these categories come from? origin.
  • "During the Han Dynasty" - this kind of pharsing is common in this article. WHY? this is already known. the article is on the "Han Dynasty"
  • "and arrowheads, as well as " - WHY is it written like this?? why is it not "arrowheads, and.." instead of this wordy "and.. as well as.."??
  • "finer luxuries of Han life" - WHY are these call luxuries? is that sourced?? why are they not simply called as they are: materials.
  • "Goods bought and sold throughout the year at the estate of Cui Shi" - is this every year of the dynasty's existence? or just a specific one?? is this all they Bought & Sold???
  • "Before the Han Dynasty.." - WHY is this part talking about before the Han Dynasty? maybe it's better to have a section call "History of the Economy of the Han Dynasty"?? any reason for this part?
  • "Fall of the Economy of the Han Dynasty" - I must have missed the section about the Fall of the Economy of the Han Dynasty. Where is it???
  • THERE ARE NO External links???

WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WhatisFeelings. You wrote: can you make the lead 3 paragraphs? Sure thing. I just split the lead into three paragraphs as you suggested.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Many peasants fell into.." - a percent or another approximation is better There is no exact percent available. Ancient records are simply not that detailed. Modern scholars prefer vague terms for this because we only know that it was a significant social phenomenon with historical consequences.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
typically, this type of info can be found in the source. any justification for stating this? Well, I thought it would be good to inform the reader where all of these pictures came from, why they are relevant, and who is the credible voice behind their descriptions.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
is this an assumption or did "Shang Yang" actually said this?? Well, Shang Yang actively championed against the nobles, and they were no fan of him. By breaking apart the well-field system, he was denying the nobles a huge source of peasant labor and production; this hardly works in their favor. Put two and two together. This is not only a modern scholarly interpretation, but even ancient Chinese scholars such as Sima Qian acknowledged this fact.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
did the "great landowners" not have control over the "peasantry" because the wording changed to "in the service of" We're talking about varying degrees here. There were always some peasants working as tenants for the great landowners. By mid Eastern Han, however, the amount of tenant farmers started to rival the amount of small independent landowners. I make this very clear in the article. In fact, this point is made very clear in that same paragraph.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the whole article has this bias. please fix it. ??? But that's exactly what a relief effort is: to help the plight of poor peasants. There is no assertion in the article that the Han government did this out of charity, goodwill, or because they had nothing else better to do. I make it very clear that the small landowner-cultivator was the backbone of the Han tax base. If this backbone is impoverished, the Han government loses much of its revenues. This is about mutual interest (not my "bias"), which seems to have been lost on you.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
only two? where did these categories come from? origin. Yes, only two. Again, this is made explicitly clear in the article: unregistered versus registered merchants. I even went to great lengths describing the differences between these two merchants, using multiple sources to verify. I'm sorry, I don't know the origin of when Chinese governments (perhaps Warring States period?) began registering merchants on the tax roll, but is this relevant? We are, after all, focusing on the Han period.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this kind of pharsing is common in this article. WHY? this is already known. the article is on the "Han Dynasty" That's a good point. I can change those if you like.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WHY is it written like this?? why is it not "arrowheads, and.." instead of this wordy "and.. as well as.."?? Well, take a look at the sentence in question and it should become apparent that there is a distinction being made between two different things here: Iron was also used to make military weapons, such as swords, halberds, and arrowheads, as well as scale armor. The "as well as" is used to differentiate between iron used for military weapons and defensive gear. Simply putting "and scale armor" would imply that scale armor is a weapon and not defensive equipment! I will just assume that English is not your first language.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WHY are these call luxuries? is that sourced?? why are they not simply called as they are: materials. Again, not a bad suggestion; I will reword that part.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
is this every year of the dynasty's existence? or just a specific one?? is this all they Bought & Sold??? What? No. It's made explicitly clear that these are the goods bought and sold on the estate of Cui Shi's and no others (what made you think otherwise?). It's merely an example of how an estate's business transactions were managed. Nothing more. In fact, I don't make any claims to the contrary.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WHY is this part talking about before the Han Dynasty? maybe it's better to have a section call "History of the Economy of the Han Dynasty"?? any reason for this part? No. There's no need to siphon off all of this material into a section on the pre-Han economy. It's a single sentence introducing the border and tributary relations the Chinese had with different nomadic groups over the ages, particularly the Xiongnu. That is entirely relevant to the "Foreign trade and tributary exchange" section, not some other section about the economy before Han times.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Fall of the Economy of the Han Dynasty" - I must have missed the section about the Fall of the Economy of the Han Dynasty. Where is it??? Because there's no such event. The economy never "fell" (what made you think this?). The Han Dynasty ended when Cao Pi usurped the throne from the last Han emperor in 220 CE. China was split apart into three different kingdoms afterwards, yet the economy never collapsed and Chinese society remained relatively the same during the Three Kingdoms period.
"THERE ARE NO External links???" And? That's not exactly a mandatory requirement. Perhaps I could find some relevant links about the Han economy, but they must come from scholarly, credible sites. To be frank, there's not a whole lot of them on the world wide web which focus exclusively on the Han economy.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find one good online link, which I just added to the external links section.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until prose issues are dealt with. I hate to say this, but this article still has many of the same style faults that originally appeared in the main Han Dynasty article. There are too many overlong sentences that become convoluted and confusing. There have been some attempts to sort this out, but this seems to have been too hasty, and produced grammar and allied problems. Taking the first sentence as an example, it reads:

  • "The Han Dynasty (202 BCE – 220 CE) of ancient China, divided between the eras of Western Han (202 BCE – 9 CE), the Xin Dynasty of Wang Mang (r. 9–23 CE), and Eastern Han (25–220 CE), had periods of economic prosperity and decline." This is confusing and awkward.
I would recast this completely to something like: "The Han Dynasty (202 BCE – 220 CE) of ancient China experienced contrasting periods of economic prosperity and decline. It is normally divided into three periods: Western Han (202 BCE – 9 CE), the Xin Dynasty (9–23 CE), and Eastern Han (25–220 CE)."
  • "The economy was marked by..." Awkward as this sentence runs. It would be better to start the sentence; "Major features of the economy were..."
  • "The Silk Road established overseas trade and tributary exchanges with a number of foreign countries across Eurasia that wereunknown by the Chinese." A road can't act and establish trade. " a number of" is not needed. Better to put: "The Silk Road facilitated the establishment of overseas trade and tributary exchanges with foreign countries across Eurasia previously unknown to the Chinese."
  • The following passage in the Urbanization and Population section seems to have had its sentences poorly divided:
These centers contrasted from older cities, which served as power bases for the nobility.[1] The use of a standardized, nationwide currency during the Qin Dynasty (221–206 BCE) facilitated long-distance trade between them.[2] Many Han cities, built along the same sites as Warring States cities, became quite large: the Western Han capital Chang'an had roughly 250,000 inhabitants, while the Eastern Han capital Luoyang had roughly 500,000 inhabitants.[3] The overall population of the Han Empire, recorded in the tax census of 2 CE, was 57.6 million people (or 12,366,470 households).
Sentence 1: "Contrasted from" is wrong. Sentence 2: "them" at the end refers to nothing, so the sentence makes no sense. Sentence 3 "built along the same sites as Warring States cities" - ungrammatical, and is this phrase even needed? Most cities grow on the sites of older ones. Were the cities completely destroyed, then rebuilt from scratch? If so, this should be said clearly. If not, leave out the phrase. Also Chang'an and Luoyang need to be separated off with commas.
These are examples only. This article really needs a full copyedit. Xandar 23:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Xandar. I have amended the article according to each one of your suggestions. In regards to your concern about the quality of the prose, I am happy to announce that User:Scapler has already begun copyediting the article. You may recall that User:Scapler was one of the major copyeditors of Han Dynasty during its featured article candidacy.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More good news! User:Baffle gab1978 has also agreed to copyedit the article! If you remember, he was another one of the major copyeditors of Han Dynasty during its FA candidacy.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: User:Scapler has just finished copyediting the article, and User:Baffle gab1978 is almost there. I would ask that you look over the prose once more and decide if it is still grounds for you to continue your opposition. Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are still some rough patches. I've done some work on a few of them, but the Conscription section raises some questions.
In addition to monetary and crop taxes, during the Western Han peasants aged fifteen to fifty-six were required to fulfill conscription duties (gengzu 更卒) for one month each year. These duties were usually fulfilled with work on construction projects. Male peasants aged twenty-three years were drafted to serve in the military (zhengzu 正卒) and assigned to either the infantry, cavalry, or naval marine. After one year of training, those less than fifty-six served for one year, performing their military service in frontier garrisons or as guards in the capital city.
During the Eastern Han, peasants could avoid the month of annual corvée labor by paying a commutable tax (gengfu 更賦). This was a simultaneous development with the increasing use of hired labor. Likewise, because the Eastern-Han government favored the building of a volunteer force, the mandatory military draft for peasants aged twenty-three could be avoided by paying a commutable tax.
This is hard to read and confusing. Were peasants conscripted for one month per year, or for two years at a time? There seems to be a confusion between military conscription and feudal or forced labour. Perhaps these isuues should be dealt with in separate paragraphs.It states that male peasants were conscripted for training at the age of 23, but then states that "those less than 56" served for (presumably) an additional year. If conscription was at 23, why are we talking of people less than 56? Or were there several periods of conscription? This needs explaining. Other points: "navy" would be better than "naval marine"; "corvée labor" is an unfamiliar term, as is "commutable tax". Finally, by "volunteer force" are we talking about some form of part-time militia, or a professional non-conscripted standing army? Xandar 01:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response (unindent): There should be no confusion here. There were two different forms of conscription: civilian and military. That's it. Just to be extremely clear, however, I have added this sentence to the beginning:
The two forms of conscription during Han were civilian conscription (gengzu 更卒) and military conscription (zhengzu 正卒).

I could understand why you were confused with the age fifty-six thing. It was actually quite clear before, but somehow it got jumbled and confused in the copyediting process. Here is how that part reads now:

After one year of training, they performed a year of military service in frontier garrisons or as guards in the capital city. They were liable to perform this year of service until age fifty-six.

In other words, you trained in the (conscripted) military for one year at age twenty-three, and until age fifty-six, one could either be immediately sent to serve on the frontiers or in the capital, or one could be called to perform a year of service at any time until age fifty-six. This article doesn't go into it, but Government of the Han Dynasty explains that until age fifty-six, these conscripted peasants joined their local militia to keep fit and retain their fighting skills.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the "naval marine" label to "navy", as you suggested. I was thinking about changing "commutable tax" to "substitution tax", but on second thought, there is nothing wrong with the word "commutable" here. You've never heard of the word commutable? i.e. to pay out the lump-sum present value of an annuity. I changed "corvée" to "conscription", but really, the two are synonymous terms. Our very own Wiki defines corvée as labour, often but not always unpaid, that persons in power have authority to compel their subjects to perform, unless commuted in some way, such as by a cash payment; sometimes this was an option of the payer, sometimes of the payee, and sometimes not an option. Notice the word commuted here, which is a completely acceptable word for this context.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for your confusion about the military, as you may remember from reading Han Dynasty a couple weeks ago, the conscripted peasants formed the non-professional Southern Army (Nanjun 南軍). Later, during Eastern Han, much of this army was made up of volunteers instead of conscripts. This was very different from the paid and professional standing army known as the Northern Army (Beijun 北軍). I did not make this distinction in Economy of the Han Dynasty because it is simply off-topic in regards to the subject of conscription. This information is further explained at Government of the Han Dynasty, which I will provide a "further information" link to in the "conscription" sub-section of this article. Fair?--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are in the interests of the reader of the article. Wikipedia aims to be generally usable and understandable by the average 12 year-old. As such, the term corvee is very obscure. This has been replaced, and the issue of ages has been clarified. However the terms "commutable tax" and "volunteer force" are still highly ambiguous as they appear in the passage. To commute something is to remove or reduce an obligation or punishment. The term "commutable tax" therefore is stating that the tax could be commuted, when in fact it is the service that could be commuted by paying the tax. The phrase needs to be replaced by something like "paying a tax in substitution" or "paying a tax in commutation". "Volunteer force" is linked to a stub article, which makes us very little wiser as to whether a professional army or a volunteer militia is meant. It seems that both existed, but the words currently used imply only a militia. Saying that the government "favoured the recruitment of volunteers," might solve this problem. Xandar 00:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are all very good points. Take a look at the section now; I have amended the article according to your suggestions.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the text has now improved to the extent where I can withdraw my objections on these points. Xandar 11:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Thank you for your patience. I just wish more people would review the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment(s)'
  • "many of which were previously unknown to the Chinese.". Chinese? Where does this stand in relation to the whole "there was no China before 1911" controversy etc.? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 06:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can say "Han people" instead, if you like, or even "people of ancient China". But most Western native English speakers are more familiar with the term "Chinese" than anything else. I'm open to changing it, though.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed it to "people of ancient China". Sound better?--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Forgot to add those two sources. I just added them now. Everything ok in that regard?--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are we giving a name check to Gary Lee Todd? Moreover, are we real comfortable with the licensing of those coin images? The website http://picasaweb.google.com/GaryLeeTodd/ChinaAncientCoinage# says they are copyrighted to Google. I'll pop over to their Wikimedia page...OK, I see they have OTRS permission to use, CC licensing etc. But still, why the name check? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 06:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the images' license is fine; I've even confirmed it with an administrator at Wikimedia. As for Gary Lee Todd, since he does not yet have an article, I included a tiny bit of background information on him to mention why he is relevant and how he has credibility in judging these coins of his personal collection. If I were to remove information about him or even the mentioning of his name, what would you suggest instead? I'm all ears for ways to improve the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A detailed and comprehensive article. I made a couple minor edits; feel free to revert if I messed up your vision. One more small note: "Silk was the main export item from China to India, while the Han Chinese wrote that Indian merchants possessed tortoise shell, gold..." Maybe better would be "while the Han Chinese acquired tortoise shell, gold.. from the Indian merchants", or "the Indian merchants arrived in China with...", or just "while the Indian merchants possessed tortoise shell, gold..." To me the fact that the Han Chinese wrote about it is less important here. Lesgles (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I'll change that. Thanks for supporting the article!--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments Were you joking at the top when you said this was small? Just curious.. I've never understood the humor of academics. Anyway, this is very good, but I have a few issues I hope you'll consider:
    • "However, it is known that wealthy unregistered merchants owned large tracts of land." Would the meaning here be any different: "However, wealthy unregistered merchants owned ..."
    • "Hundreds of laborers could be employed to produce a single luxury item" Unclear. Do you mean they all worked on one single piece, or they all made copies of that particular item?
    • "About 150,000 conscripted workers, serving in consecutive periods of thirty days each ..." The previous sentence reads "hundreds of thousands", which seems to overshoot 150,000 by a bit. Can you write "over a hundred thousand"?
    • The linking strategy in use here doesn't seem to follow any logical pattern. Some fairly common terms are linked in large lists of items (such as in "Traded goods and commodities") but others aren't. Some of the links are far stretches, like linking "sauces" to "Chinese cuisine". I'd say most common words should be delinked.
    • "Cui Shi's book Simin yueling (四民月令) is the only significant surviving work ..." This sentence seemingly starts a new line of thought.. new para?
    • "The Eastern Han period saw mass unemployment ..." Not crazy about anthropomorphism in any form. Can we reword?
    • ""Small and medium-sized estates were managed by single families, with a father acting ..." Noun plus -ing construction needs revision.
    • "This was considered to be a significant increase in the amount of tribute." Avoid using the ambiguous "this" to refer to a prior concept or object.
    • I'm a little confused about the image of the bronze rhino in the foreign trade section. You definitely write about real rhinos being tributary items, but you don't write about bronze rhinos. Since that image appears next to the discussion of real rhinos, a reader could (and did) get confused. In all fairness, I'm also functioning on 4 hours' sleep.
--Laser brain (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Laser Brain. I have amended the article according to each and every one of your suggestions, with just one exception. Are you really that concerned about the rhino? The text mentions the rhinoceros as an exotic tribute item given to the Han court from foreign states. The picture is of a rather realistic bronze-cast rhinoceros from the Han period. The ancient Chinese must have thought the exotic animal was important enough to feature in a high quality piece of artwork such as this. <sarcasm> I would love to get a picture of a real rhinoceros from the Han period, but unfortunately the Han Chinese weren't crafty enough to invent photography around the time of Christ. (Sigh). This one will just have to do in its stead! </sarcasm> Also, I was being honest when I said this article was small, but only in comparison to the other branch articles for the Han Dynasty.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the rhino is a non-issue, at least until you locate a Han era photograph! Thanks for your quick fixes—it is a fine article and I've now supported. --Laser brain (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Thanks for reviewing the article. Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as follows:

Not opposable (images are verifiably licensed for free use by their authors, or in the public domain); just two a quibbles that could be improved on. Jappalang (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what you saw was the older version of the OTRS license. I must have missed that picture when I updated all of them with the new Gary Lee Todd template for OTRS. Thanks for pointing that out. Problem fixed. As for the silk image, I would love to get you these further details, but I've already returned the book to my university library! And I just graduated from George Mason on Friday. I don't think I'll be able to check out books anymore, since I am no longer a student. (That feels weird). However, I can physically walk my lazy butt over there and obtain the info for you there (since I am no longer allowed to leave the library with the book in hand). However, I am all the way down in Roanoke with my family visiting my sister and her boyfriend's family. I can't do anything at the moment while sitting here using a Wireless connection at a Hampton Inn. I hope you understand.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problems; like I said, the images are okay. The above are just quibbles. Jappalang (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this article needs a MoS review including (but necessarily limited to) WP:OVERLINKing (see my edit summaries). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I already delinked a bunch of stuff.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, really. :) I've had a go at some more delinking, but I was conservative. It needs another pass for those that exceed duplicate, and there may be some easter egg links that will confound users. --Laser brain (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! You're obviously better at this than I am. Sometimes I have a hard time judging what to throw out, and what to keep in regards to links.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:54, 18 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Economy_of_the_Han_Dynasty/archive1&oldid=1136098035"