Talk:First Mongol invasion of Burma
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Cartakes in topic Belligerents
 | First Mongol invasion of Burma has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 30, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Taruk, the present-day Burmese term for the Han Chinese, originally referred to the Turkic troops of the Mongol armies that invaded Burma between 1277 and 1287? | |||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 3, 2023. | |||||||||
| This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:First Mongol invasion of Burma/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zanhe (talk · contribs) 05:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I promised to review the GA nomination a while ago. Sorry it took me so long. I'll review this in the next few days. -Zanhe (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
The prose is clear and concise. Only needed very minor copyediting. AGF on copyvio, as almost all sources are offline. -Zanhe (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- Lead, layout, formatting are in compliance. Not related to fiction or lists. -Zanhe (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Yes. -Zanhe (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
- Reliable sources cited throughout. I'm reasonably familiar with the subject. Although most sources are offline, the article is factually accurate as far as I can tell. -Zanhe (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- C. No original research:
- All conclusions or opinions are supported with reliable neutral sources. -Zanhe (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- Covers the entire war from beginning to end, as well as background, aftermath, and legacy. -Zanhe (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- B. Focused:
- Long enough to cover all major aspects but remain focused. No excessive details. -Zanhe (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Neutrally written in dispassionate tone. Sources are academic, not biased toward any party to the war. -Zanhe (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars. -Zanhe (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status:
- All images are on Commons, either Public Domain or tagged with a free license. -Zanhe (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Good use of images and maps, including several created by the main author Hybernator. All have appropriate captions. -Zanhe (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail: This is a very well written article on an important historical event that has had major implications on the history and demographics of Southeast Asia. Kudos to Hybernator for greatly expanding the article and bringing it to GA standard. Thank you for your hard work! -Zanhe (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Belligerents
editThe Mongol Empire and the Yuan dynasty were really not the same thing. They have separate articles for them. The Yuan dynasty was a branch or division of the Mongol Empire based in China, and it was really the Yuan (not the entire Mongol Empire) that fought with the Burma during this war, so it should be mentioned in the first paragraph. Also, the invasion was part of Kublai Khan's Campaigns, so it should be mentioned too. Thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- The troops were sourced mainly from Central Asia. Didn't Mongol Empire really break up only after Kublai Khan's death in 1294? If so, why wouldn't it be the Mongol Empire? Anglo-Burmese wars aren't viewed as a war between the British Raj and Burma. The Burma Campaign article lists the British Empire first, and then constituent states. Hybernator (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you look at the article division of the Mongol Empire, you will find that the Mongol Empire began to split in 1260 with the Toluid Civil War. By 1294 it had already broke up into four khanates, but that does not mean the Mongol Empire only broke up after Kublai Khan's death in 1294. There was no unified campaigns involving all khanates after 1260 any more, and while the Yuan emperors held the nominal title of Khagan, they were definitely unable to command the whole empire (this is obviously different from the fact that the British Empire was a unified empire at that time), although they were many Semu troops (mainly from Central Asia) within the Yuan army as you suggested. So for the purpose of this article, it should be mentioned that it was really the Yuan that fought against the Burma, but the first paragraph also mentioned that the Yuan was a division of the Mongol Empire. --Cartakes (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)