Talk:Alchon Huns/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 10:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(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);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

General comment regarding GA nomination

I would like to state my opinion that this article should fail GA because the present title ("Alchon Huns") fails WP:TITLE and the same terminology ("Alchon Huns") within the article fails WP:NPOV and WP:SYSTEMIC. I have given my reasons above in a RM discussion, but will restate briefly.

That is, WP:TITLE states that "the ideal article title ... precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable". There is no other famous "Alchon" and the people concerned used the endonyms Alkhono and Alkhon. Their own texts do not include the word "Hun". (Even "Alchon" is a Romanisation and not ideal in English because of the way that "ch" is usually pronounced.) Hence "Huns" is a redundancy and many scholars do not use the suffix when referring specifically to the Alchon.

With regard to WP:NPOV and WP:SYSTEMIC, the present title also fails because this usage of "Huns" is an anachronism and ahistorical. The Alchon and associated peoples were known collectively in Central Asia and South Asia by names such as Xyon/Huna (i.e. not "Huns.) To cut a long story short, some scholars, centuries ago, coined various neologisms with the formula "____ Huns". This reinforced a still-controversial theory that peoples such as the Alkhon were an integral part of the Huns led by Attila etc that invaded Europe during the 4th Century. In fact, however, this is a conflation and there is no proven link whatsoever between any peoples of South Central Asia (including the Alchon) and the Huns proper. As I say, many scholars do not use the suffix "Huns" when referring to the Alchon.

(As such, WP:RS is moot here, because in this case many otherwise reliable sources are demonstrably and objectively wrong on this point. WP:COMMON is also moot, because as the policy says, there may be more than one common name and we are required to make subjective judgements, based on consensus.)

Grant | Talk 07:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Grant65; @Alx bio: Thanks for the input. I noted the discussion on the talk page before I picked up this nomination. However, there is no criterion regarding article titles at GA stage. So WP:TITLE, or any other title guidelines will not affect my decision. That said, I will bear your comments in mind when assessing criteria 1a, 2b and 2c. You may want to keep an eye on the assessment and comment as you feel appropriate. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(c) (original research)	I can find no indications of OR	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	All Earwig issues are correctly attributed quotations.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (focused)		Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
There is no evidence of bias and the article is presented with a NPOV.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Only a handful of edits this year, all of them constructive.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images have free use tags	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Plentifully images. All appropriate and captioned.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Well done. Big sweeping topics like this one can be a pig to cover adequately but this article has done a fine job of it. A lot of sweat, tears and loving care has clearly gone into it. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Copied from my talk page:

Hi, thanks for your reviewing Alchon Huns and for your initial recommendations. I'll get on with addressing the issues you raise, which are all on point! I agree the article is over-illustrated so will remove images you suggest. It looks like I'll have to take on a bigger edit load than I initially thought. Though happy to do it, it will prolong the process a bit. Thanks for being patient! alx_bio 02:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alx bio: No problem. Take your time. (Within reason.) So long as there is someone still interested in working on the article I am happy. I haven't really got into it yet - I didn't want to waste my time if the editors had lost interest - but it looks solid. So hopefully not too much work for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alx bio: Some initial thoughts. If you could confirm that you are still interested in taking this fine looking article forward I will have a closer look at it. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, articles of this length should have a 2-3 paragraph lead. The current lead is five paragraphs.

Consolidated, removed references, conformed to size standards as suggested.

• OCLCs or ISBNs missing from Sankalia, Gobl and Gudrun.

Added ISBNs to Gobl and Gudrun. Sankalia is a thesis dissertation monograph and appears to not have an ISBN.

• There are several "citation needed" tags which need addressing.

working on it. Added citations, removed "current authoritative work", claim not yet established in literature. alx_bio 17:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Gog the Mild:. Will start working on these points. Will also bring in @पाटलिपुत्र:, who is an expert on the subject and major contributor. alx_bio 12:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi alx_bio, thanks for the response. I didn't want to put work in if the editor had gone on a Wikibreak. You seem to have had this one waiting a while. I will let you sort the citations and the lead before I commit to much time to the rest. I note that your expert is currently blocked, so they (and you) will need to exercise appropriate care. I use [WorldCat] to find publishers, ISBNs etc. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Images.

• The free use of File:The defeat of the Ephalites, or White Huns A.D. 528.jpg is disputed. As the article is well, possibly over, illustrated it may be easiest to simply delete it. The same applies to File:Talagan copper scroll.jpg.

Done

• "Portrait of king Khingila, founder of the Alchon Huns, c. 430 – 490 CE". 'King' - upper case K.

Done

• "Mihirakula was finally defeated in 528 by king Yasodharman." The same.

Done

@Alx bio: Hi again. There will coma a point soon when I will have to fail this for lack of response, which would be a great shame, as it does not seem to need a great amount of work to get to GA. If you could address some of the points above it would encourage me to remain patient. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the nudge! I'm on it. Would not want efforts to go to waste! Responding to the points above. alx_bio 06:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alx bio: Nice work so far. A couple of things I have noticed below. I will start going through the actual text over the next few days.

• Ref 34, could you add the publisher (Austrian Academy of Sciences Press) and location.
• Ref 40, needs an OCLC.
• Ref 49, ISBNs did not exist in 1967. Either you have the date of publication wrong or you need an OCLC not an ISBN. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Fixed 34, 40, and 49 alx_bio 15:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alx bio (talk • contribs)

@Alx bio:

• I have copy edited. Could you check it and revert anything you don't agree with or don't like.
• Refs 8, 37, 38, 41, 42, 49 and 51 need publisher location.
• In the references, the titles of all books should be in italics.
• Where a "reference" is, or contains, additional information could you change it to a note; as in this article: Razing of Friesoythe#Sources. Let me know if you have problems with this.
• It is looking good. There is less to do than I had thought. I will look again at it later in the week. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I have now addressed the above issues throughout the article. Where appropriate, I have reformatted refs to cite book (with publisher location) or cite journal formats, where appropriate, in order to have all titles of references in italics, and to have uniformity throughout the references. Have created a Notes section for quotes within refs as well as other misc. info. @Gog the Mild:, please take a look and check if these look good. Thanks, alx_bio 19:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild:@पाटलिपुत्र::

• Copy editing is all good.
• Added publisher location to these, as well as to the newly converted "cite book" refs (see next)
• Am going through and changing all book refs to "cite book", which places italics. This is an extensive edit as most refs were not cite book. Have so far gone through up to and including ===Defeat (515 CE)===
• Yes, no problem. I have created a notes section and have converted one ref to note so far. Will continue as I go through the refs

alx_bio 06:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alx bio: On a skim it looks good. You have put a lot of work in. It will be tomorrow before I can go through your changes in detail but I think that you can be optimistic. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Contributor +1

@Gog the Mild@Alx bio Dear both, I am back at last, thank you for taking care of things while I was away! I will try to contribute to the GA process as needed. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi पाटलिपुत्र. Good to see you back. Let me have any comments on progress so far. I don't think that there is too much still to do. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)