Talk:Toluid Civil War/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 15:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank

Just here to do some copyediting, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. It's a fine article. If you like the reviewing that you're getting from Milhist, please consider helping us out by doing anything you're comfortable with at Good Article nominations, Peer Reviews or A-Class nominations.
"Ariq Böke": Would it be possible to refer to him with just one name most of the time?
I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review:

No disabmiguation link found (no action required)
Checklinks reports no problems with external links (no action required)
No duplicate links found (no action required)
Image "Arik Buka defeats Alghu-Rashid al'Din Jami al Tavarikhs-large.jpg" requires US-PD tag
The multiple image (Kublai Khan, Ariq Böke) where images themselves are linked to depicted subjects rather than image captions seems very odd to me. Perhaps it is a WP:EGG violation, but I'm not sure, so I will not require any particular action in that respect here. Still I'd like to urge you to reconsider moving the links to captions rather than images - I would normally expect a click on the image to get me to image information (at the Commons), and a clickable caption to get me more info on the depicted subject.
Referencing appears to be in order.
There is an issue Dank raised above, specifically is there a possiblity to refer to "Ariq Böke" with just one name or not.
~~Date ranges such as "1260–1264" should be presented as "1260–64" per WP:DATERANGE~~
While not entirely related to the article itself, the "Mongol civil wars" box items (Berke-Hulagu, Arik Boke-Kublai) should employ ndashes instead of hyphens (i.e. Berke–Hula) per WP:NDASH. The box also spells Ariq Böke a bit differently - is that a permitted variation or does it need fixing?

Interesting article overall. Good work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tomobe03! Thank you for the review. Because Khanate General has been inactive in the last few weeks, I took the liberty to address the issues you raised. In response to Dank's question: no, I have never seen Ariq Böke's name abridged in scholarship on this period. The spelling of his name may vary, but he is never addressed as "Ariq" or "Böke" tout court. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salut. - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salut, Dank, et merci encore pour toutes tes contributions!Madalibi (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avec plaisir. - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's clear then. Does any one of you have an opinion on clickable images linked to articles instead of file information?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomobe03: I actually changed that too,[1] so everything should be all right! Madalibi (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I haven't thought to check that since I did not consider it a dealbreaker, I just figured I'd ask here too. Good to go then. Thanks for stepping up!--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Always a pleasure to help! Thanks again for the review! Madalibi (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working on the article! And thank you Dank and Tomobe03 for reviewing it.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 14:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]