Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emperor Wu of Han/archive1

Emperor Wu of Han[edit]

a referenced, comprehensive article--Jiang 04:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mild object The article needs some work before it can become featured:
- It has too few references and too few sources for an article of its lenght
- a couple non-NPOV statements (e.g. "Consort Li was arrogant and jealous")
- several unreferenced POV statements (e.g. "Emperor Wu led Han China through its greatest expansion")
- Some of the sub-sections are too long & should be broken up to improve readability (esp. "Further territorial expansion, old age, and paranoia") Mikkerpikker 12:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how "too few references" can be actionable if those where the only references consulted. Nowhere does it say that an article of X length needs at least X references. We can only say a certain reference is biased or unreliable, or that some major reference that was used is not listed, but neither is the case here. The references listed are throrough and the sources from which almost all other references are derived.--Jiang 02:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant there are too few inline citations in this article (which is both actionable and part of the criteria: 2c). With respect to the sources cited: they are all ancient texts so I'm wondering whether they would count as authoritative? You most certainly can't write an article about, say, ancient Egypt and use Herodotus as your primary source of information (or use Plutarch on Caesar etc.). Aren't there modern biographies of Wu? (Even if these biographies are based on the same sources as you are using, professional historians are much more likely to interpret them correctly...) Mikkerpikker 03:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you meant modern historians are more likely, I think you might be giving too much credit to modern historians being correct over than previous counterparts. Unless the difference is a historians of the time in question (or near enough to it) to be affected by other factors, then modern doesn't necessarily means more correct. Even then, the older historians might have access to primary or secondary source not available now making him or her more likely to be correct. (Note, otherwise agree with comment re. inline citing on an article of this length) -- KTC 23:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object as per Mikerpikker. Plus it needs a thorough copy-edit. Here are some random examples of problems in the lead.

In the lead, we're told twice that his state was centralised.

'an enduring effect throughout the existence of imperial China'—replace the first seven words with just 'on'?

'Emperor Wu's reign lasted 54 years'—why not just 'Emperor Wu reigned for 54 years'?

'Wu is best remembered for the vast territorial expansion'—'best' is a problem (it's unclear).

We have 'missions' then 'embassies'—use the same word and it's easier to read.

'While establishing an autocratic and centralized state, Emperor Wu adopted the principles of Confucianism as the state philosophy and code of ethics for his empire and started'—'While' is ambiguous; a and b and c—a list needs proper treatment.

'spanned' should be 'stretched'.

The whole thing needs word therapy. Tony 09:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object: This is a very informative and interesting page but I agree the reference section seems short, but if they were the only references used then so be it that cannot be altered. The references could though be better referred to through footnotes etc, especially the more definitive statements which could be construed as POV. I agree with Tony the whole thing needs a thorough copyedit and some of the phrasing could be made more concise - but I'm not sure that 'missions' and 'embassies' are the same thing, and suspect in China they were not. "Emperor Wu's reign lasted 54 years"- "why not just "Emperor Wu reigned for 54 years" seems to me merely a matter of preference. "Wu is best remembered for the vast territorial expansion" to me "best" is quite clear, but I would like to know by whom it is "best remembered"- who says this is a fact?. When these issues have been resolved I will be happy to change to support. Giano | talk 13:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a lot of these objections don't make sense to any Chinese who knows a thing or two about Wudi. How about just say to many Chinese, he is best remembered for territorial expansion. Maybe we can add something like that Gaozhu (new shaky dynasty, appeased the Huns), Wendi/Jindi (building up new dynasty, avoided confronting the Huns), Wudi (went to war with Hun). Maybe that way it'll be clearer why Wudi was best remembered for territorial expansion. BlueShirts 19:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is going to make a lot of difference. You have to remember many of us here are a little hazy about Chinese history, so things must be a lot clearer than when explaining to a Chinese student. Giano | talk 10:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object as per comments on inline citation and copediting. Remember this article need to read just as well to someone with no previous Chinese historical knowledge, someone with a good deal of Chinese hisorical knowledge, or someone with that hazy tidbits (often combined with myth). -- KTC 23:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]