Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the Han Dynasty/archive2

< 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 not promoted by Karanacs 15:54, 7 April 2009 [1].

History of the Han Dynasty

edit
Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 18:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article meets all the requirements for FA status, along with the other Han-dynasty related pages I have worked on.Pericles of AthensTalk 18:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is, by any reckoning, a formidable piece of work. But...File size 390kb, wikitext 141kb, wordcount 14,608? Breaches all the guidelines as to length, per WP:LENGTH. With 15 links to other "main articles", and 19 more to "further information" articles, it must be possible to produce a summary history of the Han Dynasty in a shorter form than this. Other reviewers must decide for themselves whether to take the plunge, but for me, life is too short. I would love to see a scaled-down version, say 50% less (and still a fairly long article), but as it stands it is way, way too long for me to feel confident that I was doing a proper job while reviewing it. Apologies, Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it doesn't violate Wikipedia:Article size at all. The wikitext 141kb is the overall length, thus includes "see also", external links, categories, reference sources, section titles, hidden citations that appear in the notes section, and the lead paragraphs in the introduction. The only thing that matters according to WP:SIZE is the prose text of an article, i.e. the main body of text. Using a word document a little while ago, I found out that the prose size is about 86 KB. It is still very big, but falls short of the maximum tolerated size of 100 KB. Plus, the scope of this article covers four centuries of history and thus completely justifies the current length (in my opinion).--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK I stand corrected over the length guidelines, but please note what they say about articles over 60Kb readable prose (and yours is way over that). I hope that others have the time and patience to review the article fully, but my own view is that nothing justifies a single article of this length. Good luck with it! Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. User:Nlu and I actually did a lot of copy-editing so far in an effort to reduce the size of the article. Believe it or not, but a lot of extraneous stuff has already been pruned from the text.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Brianboulton is correct. WP:SIZE recommends a maximum prose size of 10,000 words; this article is almost 50% larger than the outside limit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that (i.e. 10,000 words or 50 KB) is the recommendation for most articles (with the toleration limit exceeding no further than 100 KB), but Wikipedia:Article size#occasional exceptions states that "Two exceptions are lists and articles summarizing certain fields. These act as summaries and starting points for a field and in the case of some broad subjects or lists either do not have a natural division point or work better as a single article. In such cases, the article should nonetheless be kept short where possible. Major subsections should use summary style where a separate article for a subtopic is reasonable, and the article should be written with greater than usual attention to readability...Readers of such articles will usually accept complexity provided the article is well written, created with a sensible structure and style, and is an appropriate length for the topic. Most articles do not need to be excessively long, but when a long or very long article is unavoidable, its complexity should be minimized." I would argue that, given the brevity of this topic—comparable to the timeframe for the History of the Roman Empire and even longer than the History of the United States—I have done a fairly good job in cutting out the extraneous and keeping in what is necessary to explain this rather massive topic.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: As the reviewer of the Good Article nomination, I can assure you that much effort has already been made to shorten the article. Any further shortening, would, in my opinion, excise important information. I am in full support of promotion of this article to Featured status. Zeus1234 (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical Review
  • The following refs (code pasted below) are duplicated, a WP:REFNAME should be used instead
  • Ebrey (1999), 73. Fixed.
  • Loewe (1986), 136. Fixed.
  • Torday (1997), 83–84. Fixed.
  • Ebrey (1999), 66. Fixed.
  • Bielenstein (1986), 238. Fixed.
  • Bielenstein (1986), 241–242. Fixed.
  • Crespigny (2007), 498. Fixed.
  • Crespigny (2007), 591. Fixed.
  • Bielenstein (1986), 284–285. Fixed.
  • The following ref names are used more than once to name a ref, they should only name 1 specific ref.

Cool. I'll strike these out as I fix them. Is that ok with you?--Pericles of AthensTalk 09:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go right now, I'll be back to fix the rest of these.--Pericles of AthensTalk 09:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done!--Pericles of AthensTalk 10:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its all chevere.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on citation style Have you considered using {{Harvnb}} to make the References more accessible from the Footnotes? Or condensing the References section using {{refbegin}} and {{refend}}? Thirdly, it is somewhat unusual to have a "further references" section; if the reference in question (Dubs 1938-) is not used in the article, it might be clearer to title the section Further reading, which makes it clear that the section is not references mark II but rather categorically different. All suggestions are purely optional, of course. Thank you for writing the article, it was a very enjoyable read. Skomorokh 14:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I have amended the article according to your suggestions of using refbegin/refend as well as changing "Further references" to "Further reading". I have used Harvard style citation in the past. Although I don't mind using it for such articles, at this point it would be very inconvenient to replace the existing method, as I would have to change not only the citations in this article, but would have to conform the other five Han articles to the Harvard method as well (i.e. Han Dynasty, Economy of the Han Dynasty, Government of the Han Dynasty, Science and technology of the Han Dynasty, and Society and culture of the Han Dynasty). You can see how this becomes a much larger issue than fixing the nearly 400 individual citations of this article alone. I hope you understand. Aside from that, would you care to review the article in full? It doesn't seem to be getting much attention here at the FAC page.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment great job with the images, its hard to get an FA on such a broad topic, best of luck Fasach Nua (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you can view more Han images in the other four branch articles for the Han Dynasty; just go to the template at the bottom of the article, or simply go to the main Han Dynasty page where all the links are located.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Apart from being much too long, the overall approach is for my taste too descriptive, even at places anecdotal. It should be more analytical instead. Statements such as the dubious "the Romans allegedly paid tribute to the Han court" in the lead (!) show that the author places too much faith in Han dynasty propaganda which, as all subsequent Chinese dynasties, would call as a rule trade foreign "tribute" and their tribute "presents" (a custom already wide-spread in the Oriental Kingdoms of the Ancient Near East). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the tribute thing, it's not a matter of what you or I believe, it is a matter of what sources say. In this case, the source I used, Rafe de Crespigny's A Biographical Dictionary of the Eastern Han to Three Kingdoms (2007), does not explicitly say "tribute" but rather "gifts" that the Romans presented (he speculates they are merchants, not diplomats). I will use the term "gifts" instead, just to be safe on this matter. Sound better?--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is Crespingy's passage in full, just for the record:
Page 600: QUOTE: "Most spectacularly, it is recorded that a mission from Daqin 大秦, identified as the empire of Rome, came to Luoyang from the south in 166. The envoys claimed that they had been sent by their king Andun 安敦, presumably the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus [reg. 161–180], and the gifts they brought, including ivory, rhinoceros horn and tortoise shell, had evidently been gathered on their journey. There was and still is some suspicion that these men were enterprising traders rather than accredited officials, but their visit provided valuable prestige to the emperor at a time of political difficulty. [It may be only chance, but the date of this visit coincided with the outbreak of the Antonine plague which ravaged the Roman empire from the middle 160s: the question of epidemics is discussed in the entry for Liu Hong, Emperor Ling.]"--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, if you're serious about improving the article, exactly what contents in the article seem extraneous enough to you that they would need to be removed or further summarized? Keep in mind, I don't want to water down the article or take out so much detail that it confuses or misleads the reader, or forces them to ask more questions about the subject instead of answering them. Also, where (in exactly which sections) does the article need more scholarly analysis? Please be specific.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record. Pulleyblank has treated the subject most comprehensively. This is what he says:

...One such source of information would have been the so-called embassy from the king of Da Qin, Andun xyz an twan, that reached the Han court by sea in 166 c.E. Since the name Andun can be plausibly identified either with the emperor Antoninus Pius (reg. 138-161) or his successor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (reg. 161-180), this provides at least one firm link to Rome itself. There is not much else. A point that needs to be stressed is that the Chinese conception of Da Qin was confused from the outset with ancient mythological notions about the far west. In the same way that Da Qin replaced Zhang Qian's Da Xia as the "counter-China," the Weak Water (rud shut §§7fc) and the Queen Mother of the West (XI Wang Mu ffizE M), reported by hearsay as features of Tiaozhi in the Shiji and Hanshu, were moved to the western extremity of Da Qin in later texts. Attempts to identify them with actual western places are obviously futile. Edwin G. Pulleyblank: The Roman Empire as Known to Han China, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 119, No. 1. (1999), pp. 71-79 (78)

Please show me where Pulleyblank speaks of Roman tributes to China. This is nonsense, because, apart from two possible contacts, there was never any direct interaction between Rome and the Han. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? From the passage you provided, he does not mention tribute, but I never made an assertion about Pulleyblank's work, nor have I cited him in the article. As for the Han people's conception about what Rome was (or rather, misconceptions based on mythology of the far west), I believe Michael Loewe is the authority (can't remember off the top of my head which one of his books covers this in detail). Now, is your main qualm merely with the fact that Rome is mentioned in the introduction to this article? Since this occurence is described in greater detail in the body of the article, I would argue that a quick mentioning in the introduction is not unjustified (as WP:LEAD notes, a lead summarizes what is found in the body), but perhaps you're right. After all, the Han interactions with Parthia and Kushan were much more substanial.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, I'm the one who wrote Tibet during the Ming Dynasty; trust me, I know all about the dubious claims of "tribute" in many cases where the correct term should be "gift".--Pericles of AthensTalk 09:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To beef up the crediblity on this issue, I recently added a citation (page 460–461) from this source:

Yü, Ying-shih. (1986). "Han Foreign Relations," in The Cambridge History of China: Volume I: the Ch'in and Han Empires, 221 B.C. – A.D. 220, 377-462. Edited by Denis Twitchett and Michael Loewe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521243270.

...who also uses the word "gift", not tribute. However, Yu notes that nothing is entirely confirmed in regards to the occurrence of this alleged visit to Huan's court by Romans.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you going to lay out any specific points on where you think the article should be reduced in size? I'm all ears for suggestions, but I would ask that they be constructive ones that take into account the need for comprehensiveness (i.e. I don't want to cut anything that is vital to the understanding of this subject).--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My criticism is not that you "made an assertion about Pulleyblank's work", but that you made an assertion about Sino-Roman contacts which is not supported, ex silentium, by Pulleyblank (among others).
And this is not the only example. Your account does also mispresent the Seres by equating them simply with the Chinese, although, in fact, the term was used, in the course of several centuries, for a number of peoples and tribes in Central Asia, including the Indians. The story about the Romans allegedly praising Chinese iron has been long refuted on good grounds:

Although in Pliny's "Natural History" there are several references to the Seres and a very full account of the mining and smelting of iron in all parts of the world that were in communication with Rome, there is no other passage in that work in which the Seres and iron are brought together, nor is there in any other work that survives to us from the Roman and Greek period anything to connect the people known as the Seres with the production of or trade in iron. Yet upon this slender authority rests the assumption that steel was brought overland to imperial Rome from far-away China.

The various referenees to the Seres in the Roman writers cannot be harmonized for any one people, and it is certainly an unneceessary interpretation to identify them with the Chinese, or to transfer the "Serie iron" to China. I have already indieated that the Indian steel, although mainly an Andhra produet, was attributed by the Romans to tbe Chöra Tamils, and then eonfused with the Seres of Turkestan; and I will elose with a further identifieation of one of these ubiquitous Seros, not heretofore made, so far as I am aware.

Wilfried Schoff: The Eastern Iron Trade of the Roman Empire, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 35 (1915), 224-239 (224, 237)

I have read some articles of yours and IMHO they all suffer from the same problem. You are content with the first source you find, to quickly move on to the GA or FAC nomination, without sufficiently taking the time to look for contrary stances. IMO it could be expected from a FAC that the author is aware that Chinese 'knowledge' of Da Qian (Roman Empire) had strong mythological connotations, or that the Seres should never be lightly equated with the Chinese. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this meant to be a snarky comment? For one, there is not sufficient room in this article to explain the Chinese conceptions of the far west and the various mythological ideas about lands of immortals therein (although covered briefly in Society and culture of the Han Dynasty; well ahead of you). Even if I tried to make room, it would be irrelevant, and you would certainly complain, given that you already have issues with the size of the article (as you stated, one of the main reasons why you oppose it). In any case, I already removed the Seres comment in the article due to the fact that you shared Wilfried Schoff's source on your talk page with me already. So how exactly is it relevant anymore? So far it seems you have seized on two statements involving Rome (which I've amended according to your suggestions), and haven't really offered much in regards to improving the rest of the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 08:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what made you think I was totally unaware that the Chinese attached mythological ideas to Daqin? Was it the mentioning of the alleged embassy? The Book of Later Han description of Rome's government, postal network, and cities that I briefly mentioned in a foreign affairs section? I'm all ears, because I don't know where you got this idea (given the sparse amount of attention I gave to Rome in the article to begin with).--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gun Powder Ma. It's been a week since you first stated your opposition to this FAC. As we discussed on your talk page, are you going to list point-by-point the specific statements/areas which need improvement that I can address? It's hard to address vague generalities about what you think is anecdotal; it would be much easier for me to address your concerns if you laid out specific items that needs to be fixed, much like how User:Ruslik0 listed his concerns below that I could address one by one (click the "show" button on the extended content box). That is fairly normal procedure for an FAC if one is not merely commenting but opposing the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cross-checked some points and, particularly in the field of foreign relations, I noticed again the tendency of the author to attract notice away from the normal and usual to the unusual, extraordinary and rare. Specifically, I am irritated by some points which are given prominent weight in the lead, but which are only briefly addressed in the continuous text, and which pertinent secondary sources do give even less weight.

  • So in 400 years of Han history we have 2 possible direct contacts between Rome and the Han dynasty through Roman travellers, while a single Chinese party made it reportedly as far west as the Black Sea or the Persian Gulf. Since these travels are not in any way exemplary for the true geographical scope of China then, I am still not sure what warrants an inclusion in the lead. IMO the lead is for the broad outline and not for extreme anomalies which may effectively heavily mislead the reader. This also holds true for the 2 Japanese missions:
  • The Cambridge History writes only: "These (Hann) units <a Korean tribe> were in all probability in contact with visitors from the Japanese islands, and the missions that made their way from Kyushu to the court of Lo-yang in A.D. 57 and 107 may well have passed through the Hann confederacies on their way." From this flimsy passage the author extracts: "The first known diplomatic mission from a ruler in Japan came in 57 CE (followed by another in 107 CE)" which is fair enough in the continous texts, but leaves me mystified as to it being mentioned in the lead. Shouldn't the lead rather say something along the line that, with the exception of the odd mission, about which we know next to nothing, there were no known political contacts between Japan and China then?
  • Third point: Much of the article is simply descriptive: For example, in the first passage of "Foreign relations and war of middle Eastern Han", the relationship with the Western regions is dealt with by relying on the Cambridge History. But, while the reference explicitly evolves around the problem for the Han to upkeep their control of the Western regions due to the great financial strains and demands of their allies, which would be an interesting general point understanding Han foreign policy in the region, the WP article simply lists events and events.
IMO this is symptomatic of the general style of the article which leaves the reader with a mass of 'facts and figures', but, due to its lack of analytical structure, with little real understanding of the real forces which shaped the history of China then. This may well do in a normal or even GA status article, but IMHO fails short of FA status. Therefore, I remain opposed. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding! Since you have issues with a couple statements in the lead which are not pertinent to the summary of the article as a whole, I have shortened that particular paragraph so that it now only mentions prominent foreign contacts like the empires of Parthia and Kushan. I think that is a fair compromise.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to slightly disagree with your third point, though. I don't know if you read it or not, but the financial crisis and constraints of the Eastern Han court at this point are already mentioned in "Reforms and policies of middle Eastern Han". I didn't want to seem redundant by mentioning all of the same material again, especially since the issue of size constraints have been raised for this article (even by you in one of your original points of opposition). Plus, do I really have the space to dive into the various complex relationships and alliances that Han had with the Tarim Basin states? I'd be glad to provide a little analysis on this, but it's not going to exceed a sentence or two.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I added a bit of analysis on why Han involved itself in the Western Regions:

The Eastern-Han court periodically reasserted the Chinese military presence in the Western Regions only as a means to combat the Northern Xiongnu.[1] Han forces were expelled from the Western Regions first by the Xiongnu between 77–90 CE and then by the Qiang between 107–122 CE.[1] In both of these periods, the financial burdens of reestablishing and expanding western colonies, as well as the liability of sending financial aid requested by Tarim-Basin tributary states, were viewed by the court as reasons to forestall the reopening of foreign relations in the region.[1]

I hope you find this sufficient, especially since the issue of the article's size does not allow me to add much more. In the next paragraph, the comparison of the cost of putting down the Liangzhou rebellion (24 million cash coins) to the average annual amount of minted coins (220 million) should demonstrate just how the court's finances were suffering and why they could not commit their forces to far-flung campaigns of conquest and settlement. What do you think?--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? You still around, Gun Powder Ma? I'd like to get your take on the revision to the article I made a couple days ago.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A lot of work has clearly gone into this article. I am no expert on Chinese history (and I hate unpronounceable Pinyin naming). But I have a few niggles on prose style, particularly in the lead, where I have taken the liberty of splitting some confusingly overlong sentences. However there are two sentences in the lead which I find baffling:
  • The Han emperors were initially forced to acknowledge the rival Xiongnu shanyus as their equals, yet in reality were inferior partners in a tributary and royal marriage alliance known as heqin. Who were the inferior partners - the Han emperors or the Xiongnu?
  • From its beginning, the Han imperial court was threatened by plots of treason and revolt from its subordinate kingdoms, eventually ruled only by royal Liu family members. Were the Imperial court or the subordinate kingdoms ruled by the Liu family?

Xandar 02:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope that I fully addressed those two "niggles" you have listed here. I reworded those two selected sentences just a bit to clarify my points in no ambiguous terms. I hope you find this sufficient.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. My points have been addressed. Thank you. Xandar 11:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I read the article with great interest, but I noticed some problems that need to be fixed before the article becomes featured.

Extended content
  1. General comments:
    • The date format is not consistent. Some years are given with CE (or BCE) after them, while many others without. The article should either omit CE or use it everywhere.
    • The time intervals for the Westerns Han and Eastern Han are given in almost all figure captions! I think they should be dropped, as specifying the period as the Western or Eastern Han is enough in my opinion.
    • The article mentions the names of many persons without any explanations of who they were. Specific examples are below. Every historical figure mentioned in the article should have a very short description of their background.
  2. Lead:
    • founded by the rebel peasant leader Liu Bang However the main text says nothing about his peasant ancestry (it only says that he was a supervisor of convicts in Pei County).
    • yet in reality the Han was an inferior partner in a tributary and royal marriage alliance known as heqin Again the main text does not say that they were "an inferior partner".
    • according to Dong Zhongshu's (179–104 BCE) cosmological system involving the earthly imperial government. Could you clarify this sentence. What does "involving the earthly imperial government" mean in this context?
  3. Fall of Qin and Chu-Han conflict:
    • the armies of Qin marched on and conquered the other six Warring States I think it would be good if the names of all six states were provided here.
    • employing a ruthless realpolitik to preserve his rule I do not like this phrase, particularly the word "realpolitik". Is it used in historical literature?
    • with an agreement that the first officer to capture this region would become its king Did Liu Bang become the king of Guanzhong after he captured it? It is not clear from the article.
    • persuaded by Zhang Liang and Fan Kuai not to let his soldiers loot the city, he instead sealed up its treasury Please, clarify who they were.
    • carved Guanzhong into three kingdoms with Zhang Han and two of his subordinates Was Zhang Han the same person as the Qin's general who fought against rebels before? The article should say something about this.
    • With Chenggao and his food supplies lost, and with Han Xin (d. 196 BCE) having conquered Please, clarify who Han Xin was, what was a second front to Chu's north.
  4. Reign of Gaozu
    • I think the paragraph beginning with According to Michael Loewe should be moved forward and placed before the paragraph beginning with Wu Rui (吳芮), King of Changsha.
    • When the Xiongnu invaded Taiyuan in 200 and were aided by the defector King Xin of Hán I want to know if he was the same Xin of Hán who is mentioned above. Some clarification is necesary of why he defected.
  5. Empress Dowager Lü's rule:
    • I think the part beginning with After Hui's reign, however, the court under Lü Zhi was not only unable to deal should be moved into the next subsection, as it is not really about Hui.
  6. Reign of Wen and Jing:
    • Han imperial patrons of Huang-Lao, a mix of political and cosmological precepts, sponsored the policy of "nonaction" I do not understand what this means. What does "a mix of political and cosmological precepts" refer to? to patrons? Or may be it refers to the policy of non-action?
    • The sentence beginning with From 179 to 143 BCE, the number of kingdoms is too long and should be split in two sentences.
    • When Liu Xian (劉賢), the heir apparent of Wu Is he the same Liu Xian who rebeled against Lu in 180 BCE?
    • Emperor Jing carried out under the advice of Chao Cuo, Please, clarify who Chao Cuo was.
  7. Reign of Wu:
    • Fergana threatened to cut off Han's access to the Silk Road, yet historian Sima Qian (d. 86 BCE) saved face by asserting that Li's mission was really a means to punish Dayuan for not providing tribute of prized Central Asian stallions. Can you clarify what "save face" means in this context? The language used here is not encyclopedic.
    • Moreover, it was a government means to take over the profitable grain trade and eliminate speculation in grain trading Can you clarify what this means?
  8. Latter half of Western Han:
    • and by 80 BCE Shangguan Jie and Sang Hongyang were executed Can you clarify who Sang Hongyang was. Was he mathematician and official mentioned before?
  9. Wang Mang's usurpation:
    • Dowager Wang confirmed Wang Mang as acting emperor What does an acting imperor mean? I have never heard about "acting imperors". Does this position is the same as a regent?
    • despite the fact that a Liu marquess had revolted against Wang a month earlier, followed by others. What is the connection between the revolt of "Liu marquess" and the confirmation of Wang Mang as acting emperor? Can you calrify.
    • The "partisan" historian Ban Gu I do not like the word "partisan". It is not encyclopedic.

I will review the Eastern Han part later. Ruslik (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC) The second part of the review.[reply]

  1. Restoration of the Han:
    • On April 8, 70 CE, a Han imperial edict boasted that the southern branch of the Yellow River emptying south of the Shandong Peninsula was finally cut off by Han engineering. This looks like a stray sentence. It should be probably moved into the 'Policies under Guangwu, Ming, Zhang, and He' subsection.
    • With much of the southern North China Plain inundated, It is not clear why "much of the southern North China Plain" was inundated. Was it because of the opening of the south branch of the Yellow Rive? It should be clarified.
    • captured the fleeing Gengshi who they demoted as King of Changsha before killing him. The article does not mentioned that he was the King of Changsha. He was a king of Nanyang, was not he?
    • Comparing this to the census of 140 CE, there was a significant migratory shift of up to 10,000,000 people from northern to southern China during Eastern Han How many people did live in China in 140 CE? I think the article should say this.
    • that had been abolished by Guangwu, thus favoring centralizing policies which were not the hallmark of most Eastern Han policies to come and which himself canceled in 68, finding the policies ineffective This long sentences contains two "which", ans should probably be split.
    • he was followed by the initiative of Ban Chao Please, explain who Ban Chao was.
    • However, Gan described Rome as having hundreds of walled cities, a postal delivery network, the submission of dependent states How was it possible if he never traveled further than Persian Gulf? This should be clarified. In addition, near 100 CE Rome was an empire, not a republic. So the next section, which identifies Roman "king" with consul is probably wrong. Should it be princeps instead?
  2. Middle age of Eastern Han:
    • The total monetary cost for putting down the Qiang rebellion in Liangzhou was 24,000,000 cash. Can you compare this sum to, say, the total annual revenue in that year? Otherwise it looks meaningless, because modern readers are unlikely to know how large this sum really was.
    • Following Ban Yong's reopening of relations Please, clarify who Ban Yong was.
  3. Concluding remarks:
    • I think a table with names of all emperors and years of their reign would be beneficial for the article.

Ruslik (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. General comments
    • I have fixed the BCE/CE issue as well as the Western and Eastern Han date range issue with picture captions.
  2. Lead
    • Fixed everything you mentioned.
  3. Fall of Qin and Chu-Han conflict
    • I originally had all the six Warring States mentioned by name, but User:Nlu, in an effort to reduce prose size, took them out of the article. I have replaced them according to your suggestion.
    • Got rid of the "realpolitik", as it is an anachronistic phrase that was used by the source I cited, but not by Han scholars (since it is not an ancient Chinese word, lol).
    • I cleared up the Han Xin thing.
    • Did Liu Bang become the king of Guanzhong after he captured it? It is not clear from the article. No. In the next paragraph, it explains why he was not granted Guanzhong (given to three others), but Liu Bang was granted Hanzhong instead.
  4. Reign of Gaozu
    • I switched those two paragraphs as you suggested.
    • I clarified that he was not the general Han Xin, but for the sake of staying on topic and reducing the article prose size, I do not think it is necessary to mention why the King Han Xin decided to betray Emperor Gaozu of Han and form an alliance with Modu Shanyu. That's not the job of this article; that is the job of a lengthy description that should belong at Han Xin's page. His name is linked if anyone wants to know more. Besides, his role is not that important anyway.
  5. Reign of Wen and Jing
    • I fixed the Huang-Lao thing and the excessively-long sentence.
    • I believe you are mistaking "Liu Xian" for "Liu Xiang"; one has an extra "g".
    • I added that Chao Cuo was the Imperial Counselor.
  6. Reign of Wu
    • Can you clarify what "save face" means in this context? I changed "saved face" to "downplayed this threat", since that is what Sima did; he was downplaying the fact that Fergana had the power cut off Han's prime trade route.
    • I clarified what I meant by "eliminating speculation" in the grain trade by adding a comment in parentheses. I do hope all of your suggestions don't amount to an excessive increase in prose size, as this article is already fairly big.
  7. Latter half of Western Han
  8. Wang Mang's usurpation
    • No, Wang Mang was already the regent by 1 BCE. To clarify that Wang Mang was given a new status as of July 6 CE, I added the title of the acting emperor (jiahuangdi 假皇帝).
    • Noted why the marquesses were rebelling against Wang Mang.
    • I deleted the word "partisan".
  9. Restoration of the Han
    • I moved the sentence on the Yellow River engineering project down to the section you suggested.
    • Clarified why the southern North China plain was inundated: creation of the Yellow River's southern branch.
    • The article does not mentioned that he was the King of Changsha. He was a king of Nanyang, was not he? No, he was never made a King of Nanyang (as far as I know), he was the Emperor Gengshi. When one is demoted one level from being an emperor, one becomes a king. In this case, they made him the King of Changsha, a new title that was inferior to the one he previously enjoyed: emperor!
    • I added new census info as you suggested.
    • I split apart that long sentence in the "Guangwu, Ming, Zhang, and He" sub-section.
    • I clarified that Gan Ying acquired the information on Rome from Parthian oral accounts and not by actually visiting Rome. Since Gan Ying's information was out of date, he was in fact anachronistically describing the Republican-era consul, not the princeps.
  10. Middle age of Eastern Han
    • In the previous section on the economy under "Reign of Wu", I noted that 220,000,000 coins were minted annually, so I just reminded the reader of this in regards to the 24,000,000 cash coins used to fund the campaign of suppressing the Qiang rebellion in Liangzhou.
    • I added the fact that Ban Yong was a general, but you might remember from the previous foreign affairs section that I already mentioned Ban Yong as the son of Ban Chao.
  11. Concluding remarks

I hope that I have fully addressed all of your concerns; please let me know otherwise.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the population of China decreased by 10 million between 2 and 140 CE? And this decrease is attributed to the migration of 10 million to the southern China, which appears not to be a part of China at all? Ruslik (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC) I also noticed that some figure captions are excessively long and duplicate the text:[reply]

  1. the Chinese were fearful that Han-manufactured weapons would fall into the ... in the caption in the 'Xiongnu and Heqin' subsection should be shortened with duplicate information removed.
  2. The same with the eunuchs Zhao Zhong and Zhang Rang concealed their enormous mansions ... in 'Partisan Prohibitions' subsection.
  3. You may want to look at other captions as well. Some of them, while not duplicating the text, still are too long, my opinion.

Ruslik (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further Response: So the population of China decreased by 10 million between 2 and 140 CE? And this decrease is attributed to the migration of 10 million to the southern China, which appears not to be a part of China at all? No. I guess you didn't notice the new sentence I added to that section, QUOTE: "Population size fluctuated according to periodically-updated Eastern-Han censuses, but historian Sadao Nishijima notes that this does not reflect a dramatic loss of life, but rather government inability at times to register the entire populace." I've read the same statement by many sinologist scholars; see the last section of Ming Dynasty for further analysis on government inability to county everyone in the census, even in later times. As for the Han Dynasty, parts of southern China were still wilderness areas (or controlled by tribal peoples or states like Minyue), but over the course of Han, more and more Chinese settlers moved south into new areas that were thus occupied by the Han Empire. Does this make sense? I took care of the duplicate information in the picture captions, shortening a few picture descriptions as you suggested. Is this really grounds to continue opposing the article, though?--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think now I can support. However some remaining long captions can be still shortened. Ruslik (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for reviewing the article. I will shorten some more picture captions at your request.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is the four-column reflist ok? It shows up wonderfully on my computer (and it makes sense to have it that way, since the references are all short-form), but I don't know if it will show up well for everyone, and I know the rule of thumb is not to use more than two. Since this is an unusually long article, maybe it gets to be an exception, I don't know. This is not an oppose, just a question for anyone else looking at this FAC. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really mind it, but someone else might object.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about {{reflist|colwidth=25em}} instead of a set number of columns – that way users with wide monitors get the full four columns, but the hypothetical reader on an iphone gets them all in a single column. (See the current version of Michael Jackson for an example of how this works in practice – resize your browser window from wide to narrow and watch the number of columns automagically change.) – iridescent 22:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly, truly have no preference in this regard; I would not mind if someone changed it to {{reflist|colwidth=25em}} for the sake of iphone users, if we are to be entirely inclusive and fair to all. Feel free to edit the reflist section any way you want.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reflist|4 is broken in some browsers, and is discouraged (somewhere in WP:MOS). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I couldn't find it in WP:MOS; could you point this out? In the meantime, I'll change it to {{reflist|colwidth=25em}} anyway.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to troll through the mess that is MOS to find it, but the browser issues for reflist greater than three are also mentioned directly at {{Reflist}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link; regardless, I have just recently changed the reflist to {{reflist|colwidth=25em}}, so everything should be ok.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my recent comment above on this issue. Keep in mind, this article covers a country's historical timeframe that is roughly twice as long as the entire History of the United States, if I were to make a comparison with my own country. As User:Zeus1234 pointed out above, any further reductions in the size of the article might excise vital and pertinent information.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Thanks.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comment - The article is too long and detailed. I know it covers over 400 years of history and we should expect a long article, but this is too much. It would benefit from the advice given here; WP:Summary style. It is certainly well-written, as far as I got, but it would take me a month to produce a thorough review. Please, can some attempt be made to make this more digestible? I am not opposing because I haven't read the whole article, and this is also the reason why I am not supporting. Graham Colm Talk 17:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Unfortunately, the previous suggestions posted here have forced me to add a few more sentences and thus increase the prose size (if I was to gain support for the article). I certainly can't please everyone, but I would definitely take further suggestions on how to reduce the article's prose size. I don't think any single section is excessively long. It's just that there has to be so many sections to cover the history in a linear way and comprehensive fashion. Perhaps we could cherry pick a sentence or two out of each section that could be stricken from the article, granted that the flow of the article is not disrupted or major points made unclear by removal of vital content.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm completely out of my depth on this subject. I have made a suggestion on my Talk Page User_talk:GrahamColm#Hi_GrahamColm—in response to your message—which I'm too shy to paste here. Graham Colm Talk 23:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pasted from my Talk Page:

This is a difficult because this interesting subject is completely new to me. My gut reaction is to suggest simply dividing it into two articles straight down the middle; "History of the Western Han Dynasty" and "History of the Eastern Han Dynasty". I know that this would probably mean sacrificing this FAC, but who knows, two FAs might result! As I say, this not something I know anything about and you might think this is a ridiculous idea, if so please forgive my ignorance. Bye the way, the article is beautifully written on the whole. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 22:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is an ignorant idea at all; it does make logical sense to make such a split considering the interruption of the Han Dynasty by Wang Mang's brief regime. However, in addition to what you've already mentioned about this article's current featured candidate status, another reason it would bad to split the article is the fact that it is already a branch article of Han Dynasty. I think it would be a bit excessive to make branch articles of branch articles. That might make it a bit too confusing for the readers who want to know where they can locate everything.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you are the expert, but the second half of the article would only be one mouse click away. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 23:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I thought you meant simply shortening the article so that it would summarize two new articles: "History of the Western Han Dynasty" and "History of the Eastern Han Dynasty". Like I said, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea; however since I have three supports for the article in its current form and two oppositions, let's see how other editors feel about the 86 KB prose size of the article. I think at this point that is the only matter of contention that some editors might have. Keep in mind though that this is a preference issue, since the article prose size exceeds the recommended limit of 50 KB, but not exactly violating the maximum, upper bound limit of 100 KB (according to WP:SIZE).--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:47, 7 April 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.
  1. ^ a b c Yü (1986), 421.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_the_Han_Dynasty/archive2&oldid=1136097344"