Wikipedia

Talk:Genghis Khan/GA1

< Talk:Genghis Khan
Latest comment: 11 months ago by Borsoka in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 11 months ago45 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 05:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (inline citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

This article is really a big endeavour! I assume the review will last for more than the usual one week.

Name and title

edit
  • For the meaning of the name Temüjin and the title Genghis, see the below sections Birth and early life and Kurultai of 1206 respectively. Delete. (His names should be listed in one or two sentences in this section. I understand that Temüjin means "blacksmith" without doubt, and the meaning of Genghis is uncertain. Both facts could be briefly mentioned in this section, and the details could be explained in sections "Birth and early life" and "Kurultai of 1206".)
    • There is significant doubt on the meaning of the name Temüjin, as explained later. It seems best to me to just point to the sections where each word is explained in detail, rather than duplicate a couple of sentences. I have changed the hatnote from "For the meaning of" to "For the uncertain meanings of"—does that help
  • ...original Mongolian names... Is the adjective "original" necessary?
  • ...; many different systems and standards continue to be in use today... Delete. (This statement is a repetition of the first statement of the same sentence.)
    • Both removed.
  • ...the autochthonous Mongolian... Is the adjective "autochthonous" necessary?
  • ...can be transliterated in English as Činggis... Is this an English transliteration or a transliteration?
    • Good catch. Trimmed.
  • ...Mongolian ᠴᠢᠩᠭᠢᠰ ᠬᠠᠭᠠᠨ (Mongolian pronunciation: [t͡ʃʰiŋɡɪs xaːŋ])... the Chinese 成吉思汗; Chéngjísī Hán and the Persian: چنگیز خان; Čəngīz H̱ān. Decide what do you want to use: IPA or simple transliteration, with or without brackets.
    • Pronuncations removed.
  • As Arabic lacks a sound similar to "č", writers using the language transliterated the name to J̌ingiz, while Syriac writers used Šīngīz. Is this necessary? Why are not Arabic and Syriac scripts used?
    • Pelliot doesn't use Arabic/Syriac scripts, so including them would be OR, unless a suitable source could be found. I think it is necessary, as I have endeavoured to provide a worldwide view of the subject.
      • Why is Arabic and Syriac more important than Turkic, Russian and Georgian? (During Genghis's reign the Mongols fought Turkic tribes, and reached Russia and Georgia, but did not attack Arab- or Syriac-speaking territories.)
        • Pelliot doesn't explicitly say, but my feeling is that the Arabic and Syriac transliterations influenced many languages and spellings in a way that Turkic, Russian and Georgian didn't.
  • ...Taizu (太祖, meaning "Supreme Progenitor") and the posthumous name Shengwu huangdi (Chinese: 聖武皇帝, meaning "Holy-Martial Emperor") I assume "太祖" is also Chinese.
  • His birth name ᠲᠡᠮᠦᠵᠢᠨ (Chinese: 鐵木真) is most commonly spelt Temüjin in English, although Temuchin is also sometimes used. I assume ᠲᠡᠮᠦᠵᠢᠨ is Mongolian. Why is not 鐵木真 transliterated? (When introducing his honorific, the Chinese version is tranliterated.)
    • Added transliteration.
  • I made some minor edits for the sake of consistency in the section. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sources

edit
  • Modern historians have found it difficult to fully compile and understand early sources describing the life of Genghis Khan, on account of their great geographic and linguistic dispersion. I am not sure that I understand the sentence. Does it refer to the fact that there few scholars who speak Mongolian, Chinese, Persian and Arabic (the languages of the priary sources)?
    • Well, few Western scholars who speak those languages, and few scholars of those languages who speak English/German/French, yes.
      • I think this could be clarified in the article because the text is not clear.
        • I've had a go; let me know if that works.
  • ...a large amount of extra detail on individual campaigns and biographies... Is the adjective "extra" necessary? If yes, some context is also necessary. I do not understand the reference to biographies.
    • My mistake on the "biographies", I chose the wrong word. "Extra" removed.
  • ...occasionally deteriorates in quality... What does it mean in context?
    • Some parts contain a higher number of errors than others.
      • I think this could be clarified in the article because the text is unclear.
        • I don't see how.
          • You could say explicitly that some parts contain errors. :)
            • Done.
  • ...translation into Chinese script... Was the Mongolian text translated to Chinese, or transliterated into Chinese script?
    • Translated. You can't transliterate an entire text.
      • But the sentence does not state this.
        • Oops.
  • ...the author... Who? Author or authors, or compilator?
    • No one knows. Added an "unknown".
  • ...recounts taboo events such as the murder of his half-brother Behter and the abduction of his wife Börte Do not link the article to itself. I would rephrase: "recounts taboo events such as fratricide and doubts about his paternity..."
    • Rephrased similarly.
  • ...in the Ilkhanate administration... Perhaps "in state administration under Genghis' successors"? (Most readers have no knowledge of the Ilkhanate and its connection to the Ghengisids)
    • Rephrased similarly.
  • The most important Persian source... Could this PoV be attributed to a scholar, or does it represent modern historians' consensus?
    • Consensus. No one comes close in terms of detail or breadth.
      • In this case, this fact should be mentioned in the article.
        • It is. I am stating in wikivoice that the modern historians' consensus is that Rashid al-Din is the most important Persian source.
  • The most important Persian source was... Was or is?
    • Probably is, considering we're ranking them in terms of importance to us. Changed.
  • ...on the order of Ilkhan Ghazan... Perhaps "on the order of the Genghisid Ilkhan Ghazan"?
    • I don't see what that would add—I'd have to explan Genghisid. I've changed to "Genghis' descendant Ghazan"—does that work?
  • Al-Din was allowed privileged access to both confidential Mongol sources such as the Altan Debter and to experts on the Mongol oral tradition... Why did he have privileged access to these sources?
    • Because he was doing it on the order of Ghazan. I've added an explicit mention.
  • ...which include more information on the Mongols... More or additional information? On the Mongols or on Genghis Khan?
    • Clarified.
  • Introduce Jalal al-Din. Borsoka (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • I think all sources should be mentioned consequently. In case of Chinese sources, their transliterated title, its Chinese form and meaning are listed, in case of other sources, only their transliterated title is mentioned. For similar reason, I would mention "Golden Book" (and link it to Altan Debter) instead of "Altan Debter". Borsoka (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Birth and early life

edit
  • Some traditions place his birth... One or more examples?
    • Too intricate and detailed to list. I'm choosing to follow Morgan's
  • Why is not Zhao Hong mentioned in section "Sources"? A wikilink to Zhao Hong? I think that he visited Mongolia in 1221 should be mentioned here, not in note "f". For chronological reasons, I would mention Zhao Hong before Rashid al-Din.
    • Done all except the wikilink, because he doesn't have an article.
  • ...his birthplace as Delüün Boldog on the Onon River, but this has been placed... Why "but"? I think modern scholars associated it with certain places. If yes, this should be mentioned in the text.
    • "But" because which one it is is uncertain.
  • Mention that Khentii Province is in Mongolia, or delete the reference to Russia when Agin-Buryat is mentioned.
    • Why? They're not direct comparisons.
  • Mention that Borjigin is a Mongolian/Mongol clan.
  • ...the revered warlord... Is the adjective necessary?
    • Changed both.
  • I assume temür is a Mongolian term. The language should be mentioned.
    • No, it's a root common to many Asian languages, including Mongolian and Turkic. In this case, I don't think it really needs to be said.
      • In this case, the fact that the root is present in many Asian languages should be mentioned. A root can only be interpreted in the context of one or more languages.
  • ...the mythical ancestor Alan Gua... Whose ancestor?
    • Added.
  • Are the links to horse riding and archery necessary?
    • Removed.
  • Mention that Onggirat is a Mongolian/Mongol tribe.
    • They were neither. They were certainly not Mongols, and Mongolian is used to refer to the modern state.
      • Do we know their ethnicity? If we do not know, we could mention this fact.
        • They were part of the Mongolic peoples; other than that, no.
          • Ratchnevsky refers to the Onggirat as "one of the most important of the Mongol tribes" (op. cit. p. 20). I think this fact should be mentioned because its an explanation for the marriage alliance.
  • ...prestigious Onggirat tribe, which had intermarried with the Mongols... Mongols? Both the Onggirat and the Yesügei were Mongols (at least to one of the cited sources).
  • ...to work off his future bride's dowry... Bride-price and dowry are not synonyms.
    • You learn something every day.
  • However, the Tatars recognised their old enemy... No previous reference to the relationship between Yesügei and the Tatars. Perhaps: "although he had fought them/warred against/was at war with them. The Tatars recongnised their old enemy..."
    • There is: "his father had just returned from a successful campaign against the Tatars"
  • ...the Tatars ... slipped poison into his food. Yesügei gradually sickened but managed to return home... Do modern historians regard the murder as a fact, or is it an explanation for Yesügei unexpected death recorded in one of the sources?
    • I mentioned in the peer review that it's seen as likely—it dovetails nicely with what we know about Mongol-Tatar relations and later events. No other explanation is as persuasive.

Adolescence

edit
  • ...neither was considered old enough to rule. What? The Borjigin?
    • Yesügei's people.
  • Led by the widows of Ambaghai, a previous Mongol khan, a Tayichiud faction excluded Hö'elün from the ancestor worship ceremonies which followed a ruler's death and soon abandoned the camp. Unclear. Was Ambagai one of the Mongol khans, or khan of the Borjigin, or supreme ruler of several Mongol tribes/clans? Who were the Tayichius? What did Hö'elün's exclusion from the ceremony indicate? Whose camp did they abandon?
    • Simplified by removing the references to Ambaghai, explaining who the Tayichiud were and whose camp they abandoned. Hö'elün's exclusion simply showed that she did not have power.
      • I think it is still unclear. Were the Ambagai subject to Yesügei (as the reference to their abandonment of Hö'elün's camp implies), or did they only attend his funeral?
        • Clarified (note I assume you meant Tayichiud not Ambaghai). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
          • ...the ancestor worship ceremonies which followed a ruler's death... Ratchnevsky does not write that the ancestor worship ceremonies followed a ruler's death. Instead, he suggests that these were regular ceremonies: "[they] no longer permitted Hö'elun to attend the ceremonies in veneration of their ancestors". (op. cit. p. 22)
            • Your interpretation of Ratchnevsky is incorrect. The Qajaru Ineru ceremony took place after the death of a ruler during the kurultai to determine leadership. See May 2018 and de Rachewiltz 1990.
              • I do not have access to May, but the translation of the Secret History by de Rachewiltz also makes it clear that it was a regular ceremony: "That spring, when Örbei and Soqatai, the wives of Ambaqai Qa’an, performed the Qa†aru Inerü sacrifice to the ancestors....". Are references to a primary source (the Secret History) are necessary if the source is not quoted? Borsoka (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • ...to shame them into staying with her family. Is the reference to "her family" necessary? How did she shame them?
  • Removed and added, respectively.
  • Link "taboo" when it is first mentioned (if linking it is necessary at all as it is a well know term in several languages).
    • Removed.
  • As the family lacked allies, Temüjin was likely taken prisoner on multiple occasions. Could this PoV be attributed to a scholar? Is this a consensual scholarly PoV, or only a marginal one?
    • I don't know why there's a "likely" in there—it's pretty much uncontested.
  • ...who had abandoned him after his father's death Delete.

Early campaigns

edit
  • ...he became an adult... Did he become an adult or reach the age of majority?
    • Both. May: "attained adulthood"; Ratchnevsky: "turned fifteen, reaching [his] majority".
      • So legally adult because he reached the age of majority. I would say that he reached the age of majority because I doubt that most readers regard a fifteen-year-old adolescent as an adult.
        • Fair enough.
  • ...delighted to see the son-in-law he feared had been lost, immediately consented to the marriage... Could he be described as son-in-law before the marriage? Why did he think that Temüjin had been lost? Why was the marriage still important for Dei Sechen? (This part of the article reads like a novel.)
    • 1) Ratchnevsky does 2) Didn't know if he was still alive (poverty + exclusion from tribe). 3) Who knows? 4) Yes, it's a rather cinematic moment; I've edited a little, but I am just saying what the RS do.
  • ..., a sign of great wealth.. Whose wealth?
    • Clearly unclear, so I've rewritten.
  • Seeking a patron, he then chose to approach... Name Temüjin.
    • Good call
  • Introduce Burkhan Khaldun as a mount.
    • Done.
  • In accordance with levirate law, Börte was given to Chilger, younger brother of Chiledu. This makes sense only if Chiledu had died before Börte's abduction. Could it be mentioned?
    • You are correct; edited.
  • ...khan of the Mongols Some words about the office? (Perhaps when it is first mentioned in a previous sentence.)
    • Is just saying "(ruler)" okay?
  • ...a servant of the Jurchen Jin dynasty Where? (Perhaps "in north-eastern China or the neighboring regions"?)
    • Good call.
  • Avoid the use of the template c. in the main text. Replace it with expressions like "around", "in about".
    • Apparently MOS:CIRCA is a thing, so I'll have to do that for the entire article.
  • Zhao Hong is first mentioned in a previous section. Borsoka (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
    • Removed introduction. Thanks for the comments.

Defeating rivals

edit
  • What does "cha-ut kuri" and "Ong Khan" mean and in which language? Were they honorific titles or did actual power connect to them?
  • ...by a family member... Whose?
  • Toghrul was given the title of Ong Khan by the Jin, traditionally as a reward for his support during the Tatar campaign. In fact, Toghrul may not have participated in the warfare, and the title was only thus given as a pacificatory gesture. Necessary? I would delete both sentences.
  • ...traditionally as a reward for his support during the Tatar campaign... Traditionally or according to tradition?
    • Removed Toghrul sentences, added that "cha-ut kuri" is an honorific in Jurchen, and clarified the family member.
  • ... junior vassal... Are both the adjective and the noun necessary?
    • Removed junior.
  • Jamukha had behaved poorly..., allegedly beheading enemy leaders and humiliating their corpses, or boiling seventy prisoners alive 1. Can the unhuman acts described as signs of "poor" behaviour? 2. I understand there are concurring sources. This should be clarified.
    • 1) changed 2) the sources concur that he was cruel, but on little else.
  • A number of disaffected followers, including Yesügei's nökor Münglig and his sons, defected to Temüjin as a consequence. Did they indeed defect because their lord was cruel? In the next sentences, Temüjin will have a prisoners back broken, clan leaders executed, etc.
    • Added in that Temüjin's new wealth didn't hurt.
  • ... this loose confederation was routed... By whom?
  • Jamukha drew attention to the threat Temüjin posed to the traditional steppe aristocracy. Could you explain it? Temüjin was a member of the traditional steppe aristocracy.
    • Clarified both.
  • Toghrul attempted to lure his vassal... A previous sentence contradicts this status. Perhaps some adjective ("powerful")? Borsoka (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Explain the title gurkhan with two or three words.
    • Done.

Kurultai of 1206 and reforms

edit
  • Explain the term kurultai with two or three words.
    • Done.
  • ...control over ... more than fifteen million animals... Animals? Could you specify or explain because the reference to unspecified animals may be strange for readers who do not have information about nomadic societies.
    • Removed as an unneeded digression.
  • Delink reform or add a more specific link.
    • Done
  • ... by the families of the khan and his brothers... I assume "by Genghis's and his brothers' families".
  • ...Borjigin Genghisids... Delete Borjigin. Link Genghisids and explain it.

Consolidation of power (1206–1210)

edit
  • From 1206 to 1209, Genghis Khan was predominantly focused on consolidating and maintaining his new nation. The timeframe differs from the one mentioned in the cited source.
    • Fixed.
  • ...allowing Temüge to assassinate Kokechu... Temüge's henchmen assassinated Kokechu.
    • Rephrased.
  • ...he usurped the shaman's position as the Mongols' highest spiritual authority... Ratchnevsky does not write that Genghis usurped the shaman's position. Instead he writes that he "appointed an arch-shaman who was devoted to him", enforcing "the primacy of imperial power over that of the priests".
    • Atwood: "Chinggis Khan thus replaced Teb Tenggeri as the empire’s voice of heaven’s will ... Chinggis Khan himself assumed the shamanic function of communicating with heaven."
    • Biran: "While he had appointed another shaman (of a smaller tribe) and continued to use the services of astrologers and diviners throughout his rule, by eliminating the noted shaman Chinggis Khan asserted ... his close and personal relation to Heaven. Chinggis’s intimate connection with the supernatural is stressed in both Mongolian and Muslim sources...By placing himself in a shaman’s position, Chinggis Khan enhanced the sacral component of his leadership, bolstering his prestige among the Mongols." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Consider mentioning that the Qara-Khitai ruled western China, and Western Xia was located in northern China.
    • The former is very complicated, and both are difficult to insert into text. Is the map not sufficent? It's a very good map.
  • ..., unlike the Jin's which was strongly fortified Is this necessary in context?
    • Yes—it's why Genghis didn't attack them
  • Consider clarifying that Wulahai was a Xia fortress.
    • Done.
  • Fix the first page number in reference 99.
    • Good catch.
  • ...with a successfully-executed feigned retreat I would add that they defeated their pursuers to introduce the following sentence.

Campaign against the Jin (1211–1215)

edit
  • ...Genghis greatly disliked him. Do we know why?
    • Atwood does not say.
  • ...he also declined to aid the Xia against the Mongols 1. Are you sure that Yongji declined to assist the Xia, not his predecessor? (See Ratchnevsky, page 108) 2. Also? Why not "although he declined..."?
    • Cut, moved to the relevant section, and rewritten.
  • When asked to submit and pay the annual tribute to Yongji in 1210... The quote in Ratchnevsky's book says that Yongji's predecessor demanded the tribute.
    • Tribute had been paid annually for decades (see Atwood p. 275). The quote in Ratchnevsky's book describes a departure from a half-century norm.
  • ...their internal instabilities... There is not reference to them. Consider introducing this info.
    • Doesn't need to be fully explained. Rephrased slightly.
  • Introduce the Khitans as a people subject to the Chin. Borsoka (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Defeating rebellions and Qara Khitai (1216–1218)

edit
  • ...his habit of taking too many concubines for his harem led the tribes to rebel and take him prisoner I think the sentence could be simplified, and context could be added. Perhaps "...he caused a riot by taking native concubines, and the rioters captured him..."
    • Simplified
  • Delink Qara Khitai. Qara-Khitai or Qara Khitai?
    • The latter. Duplicate links in separate sections are allowed per MOS:DUPLINK.
      • But the dublicate links are unnecessary in this case. Qara Khitai is a well known term in comparison with the names of small tribes and lesser Mongol leaders who are not duplinked in the article. Borsoka (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
        • Fair enough.
  • Introduce Kashgar as a city.
    • Done.

Invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire (1219–1221)

edit
  • Is the link at "brutal urban conflict" useful?
    • Removed.

Return to China and final campaign (1222–1227)

edit
  • Genghis abruptly halted his Central Asian campaigns in 1221. I would mention the possible causes after this sentence.
    • That would be more confusing, given that the possible causes are disputed.
  • As far as I can remember the basqaq were tax-collectors.
    • Ratchnevsky p. 138 has a lengthy discussion.

Death and aftermath

edit

Character and achievements

edit
  • ... cat's eyes... Perhaps because of the limits of my English, I do not understand the term. For me, the term refers to something in cosmetics.
    • I believe it just refers to eyes that look somewhat feline.
  • ...the emphasis he placed on social harmony... I think some limitation is needed taking into account that he was an extremly cruel military leader. Perhaps "harmony in Mongol society" or "internal peace"?
    • I don't understand why that is needed.
      • The cited source explains what social harmony means in the context: "In reaction, Chinggis grew up with an ideal of a unified and harmonious society, with clear lines of authority and obedience"
        • Rephrased. I don't think its necessary to specify "Mongol", for the same reason as with the revolution below.
  • ... as his mother Hö'elün taught him... Is this necessary?
    • Removed.
  • Delink kurultai (it is a better known term than nökod in the same sentence), and also Baljuna Covenant, Changchun.
    • Done.
  • ...and showed good judgement in choosing his heir According to whom?
    • Historical consensus.
      • A single source is cited and it does not verify the statement. Biran says: "he understood the importance of appointing an heir for securing the smooth transition of power after his death."
        • The next sentence: "Moreover, he chose well: his successor, Ögödei, proved himself highly capable not only in the field but also in governance, developing many of his father’s ad hoc decisions into a systematic policy in the fields of administration, religion and law." Also added a citation from May. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • As far as I remember Tengri was the supreme god, not "a shamanistic deity".

Legacy and historical assessment

edit
  • Explain the term " chakravartin" with two or three words.
    • Done
  • ...the revolution of 1990... I would mention the full name ("the Mongol revolution of 1990").
  • ...making Mongolia the centre of international culture... Perhaps: "making Mongolia the centre of international culture for a while/for a period"?
    • Done.

Lead

edit
  • Why is c. 1162 was chosen from among multiple possibilities especially because the main text seems to favor 1167 ("The 1167 dating, favoured by Paul Pelliot, is derived from a minor source—a text of the Yuan artist Yang Weizhen—but is far more compatible with the events of Genghis Khan's life.")
    • Clarified in body; from an article-writing point of view, c. 1162 is a) in the middle, b) officially recognised, and c) probably the predominant dating in RS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
      • The choice should be explained in the main text. For instance, Ratchnevsky writes, that "it is assumed that Temuchin was born around the mid 1160s", suggesting c. 1165 (op. cit., p. 19). Biran verifies that Temuchin was born around 1162, surprisingly referring to Ratchnevsky (op. cit., p. 33).
        • There is no "choice"—that would be OR. I have added an explicit justification in the body.
  • He is not mentioned as khagan in the main text.
    • Good spot. Removed.
  • ..., and remains,... Delete.
    • Done.
  • Link meritocracy. Borsoka (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
    • Done.

Pictures

edit
  • Genghis Khan and Börte.jpg: according to the cited source, the picture depicts Tumanba Khan. The picture needs a US PD tag.
    • Image removed.
  • Subudei.jpg: The source is a dangerous site according to Norton. The picture needs a US PD tag.
    • Image replaced.
  • Mongol Invasion of China.png: Unsourced.
    • Added
  • Bataille entre mongols & chinois (1211).jpeg: US PD tag is needed.
    • Done.
  • Mongol horsemen battle Jin mounted.jpg: The sources should be specified and a link is needed.
    • Image replaced.
  • Siège de Beijing (1213-1214).jpeg: US PD tag is needed.
    • Done.
  • Genghis Khan with sons (Marco Polo, 1400s).jpg: US PD tag is needed.
    • Done.
  • Emperoryuandinastycollage.jpg: the caption contradicts the picture's description at Commons.
  • YuanEmperorAlbumOgedeiPortrait.jpg: US PD tag is needed. Borsoka (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Secret history.jpg: It needs a US PD tag.
    • Done.
  • Jame' al-Tavarikh (Compendium of Chronicles) manuscript by Rashid al-Din Fazlullah, Iran, early 15th century AD, ink, watercolour, and gold on paper - Aga Khan Museum - Toronto, Canada - DSC06735.jpg: It needs a US PD tag. Borsoka (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
    • Done.

Overall

edit

Thank you for this thoroughly sourced, nicely written, and highly interesting article. If my concerns at sections "Consolidation of power (1206–1210)" and "Character and achievements", in the Lead are addressed, and the problems with the pictures are fixed, I will promote the article. If you are thinking to improve it before its FAC, I suggest you could add a "Background" section about the political situation (tribes, kingdoms), and about the features of Mongol society, including religion. Borsoka (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Borsoka for your speedy and thorough assessment. I believe I've fixed all the issues you've highlighted. I think a "Background" section on this article would be undue and tangential to the man himself, but as my next rewrite will likely be Mongol Empire (after the current FAR for Byzantine Empire) that sort of information will definitely be included there. Many thanks again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genghis_Khan/GA1&oldid=1190494446"