Talk:Alchon Huns/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 10:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Criteria
 Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ;
 * (c) ; and
 * (d).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

 General comment regarding GA nomination

I would like to state my opinion that this article should fail GA because the present title ("Alchon Huns") fails WP:TITLE and the same terminology ("Alchon Huns") within the article fails WP:NPOV and WP:SYSTEMIC. I have given my reasons above in a RM discussion, but will restate briefly.

That is, WP:TITLE states that "the ideal article title ... precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable". There is no other famous "Alchon" and the people concerned used the endonyms Alkhono and Alkhon. Their own texts do not include the word "Hun". (Even "Alchon" is a Romanisation and not ideal in English because of the way that "ch" is usually pronounced.) Hence "Huns" is a redundancy and many scholars do not use the suffix when referring specifically to the Alchon.

With regard to WP:NPOV and WP:SYSTEMIC, the present title also fails because this usage of "Huns" is an anachronism and ahistorical. The Alchon and associated peoples were known collectively in Central Asia and South Asia by names such as Xyon/Huna (i.e. not "Huns.) To cut a long story short, some scholars, centuries ago, coined various neologisms with the formula "____ Huns". This reinforced a still-controversial theory that peoples such as the Alkhon were an integral part of the Huns led by Attila etc that invaded Europe during the 4th Century. In fact, however, this is a conflation and there is no proven link whatsoever between any peoples of South Central Asia (including the Alchon) and the Huns proper. As I say, many scholars do not use the suffix "Huns" when referring to the Alchon.

(As such, WP:RS is moot here, because in this case many otherwise reliable sources are demonstrably and objectively wrong on this point. WP:COMMON is also moot, because as the policy says, there may be more than one common name and we are required to make subjective judgements, based on consensus.)

Grant &#124;  Talk  07:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi ; Thanks for the input. I noted the discussion on the talk page before I picked up this nomination. However, there is no criterion regarding article titles at GA stage. So WP:TITLE, or any other title guidelines will not affect my decision. That said, I will bear your comments in mind when assessing criteria 1a, 2b and 2c. You may want to keep an eye on the assessment and comment as you feel appropriate. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Review
 <li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li> <li>:</li>

</ol>

Discussion
Copied from my talk page:


 * Hi, thanks for your reviewing Alchon Huns and for your initial recommendations. I'll get on with addressing the issues you raise, which are all on point! I agree the article is over-illustrated so will remove images you suggest. It looks like I'll have to take on a bigger edit load than I initially thought. Though happy to do it, it will prolong the process a bit. Thanks for being patient! alx_bio 02:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No problem. Take your time. (Within reason.) So long as there is someone still interested in working on the article I am happy. I haven't really got into it yet - I didn't want to waste my time if the editors had lost interest - but it looks solid. So hopefully not too much work for you.'' Gog the Mild (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Some initial thoughts. If you could confirm that you are still interested in taking this fine looking article forward I will have a closer look at it. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Consolidated, removed references, conformed to size standards as suggested.
 * Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, articles of this length should have a 2-3 paragraph lead. The current lead is five paragraphs.
 * OCLCs or ISBNs missing from Sankalia, Gobl and Gudrun.
 * Added ISBNs to Gobl and Gudrun. Sankalia is a thesis dissertation monograph and appears to not have an ISBN.


 * There are several "citation needed" tags which need addressing.
 * working on it. Added citations, removed "current authoritative work", claim not yet established in literature. alx_bio 17:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Will start working on these points. Will also bring in, who is an expert on the subject and major contributor. alx_bio 12:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the response. I didn't want to put work in if the editor had gone on a Wikibreak. You seem to have had this one waiting a while. I will let you sort the citations and the lead before I commit to much time to the rest. I note that your expert is currently blocked, so they (and you) will need to exercise appropriate care. I use [WorldCat] to find publishers, ISBNs etc. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Images.
 * The free use of File:The defeat of the Ephalites, or White Huns A.D. 528.jpg is disputed. As the article is well, possibly over, illustrated it may be easiest to simply delete it. The same applies to File:Talagan copper scroll.jpg.
 * Done


 * "Portrait of king Khingila, founder of the Alchon Huns, c. 430 – 490 CE". 'King' - upper case K.
 * Done


 * "Mihirakula was finally defeated in 528 by king Yasodharman." The same.
 * Done


 * Hi again. There will coma a point soon when I will have to fail this for lack of response, which would be a great shame, as it does not seem to need a great amount of work to get to GA. If you could address some of the points above it would encourage me to remain patient. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nudge! I'm on it. Would not want efforts to go to waste! Responding to the points above. alx_bio 06:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice work so far. A couple of things I have noticed below. I will start going through the actual text over the next few days.
 * Ref 34, could you add the publisher (Austrian Academy of Sciences Press) and location.
 * Ref 40, needs an OCLC.
 * Ref 49, ISBNs did not exist in 1967. Either you have the date of publication wrong or you need an OCLC not an ISBN. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed 34, 40, and 49 alx_bio 15:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alx bio (talk • contribs)


 * I have copy edited. Could you check it and revert anything you don't agree with or don't like.
 * Refs 8, 37, 38, 41, 42, 49 and 51 need publisher location.
 * In the references, the titles of all books should be in italics.
 * Where a "reference" is, or contains, additional information could you change it to a note; as in this article: Razing of Friesoythe. Let me know if you have problems with this.
 * It is looking good. There is less to do than I had thought. I will look again at it later in the week. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now addressed the above issues throughout the article. Where appropriate, I have reformatted refs to cite book (with publisher location) or cite journal formats, where appropriate, in order to have all titles of references in italics, and to have uniformity throughout the references. Have created a Notes section for quotes within refs as well as other misc. info., please take a look and check if these look good. Thanks, alx_bio 19:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now addressed the above issues throughout the article. Where appropriate, I have reformatted refs to cite book (with publisher location) or cite journal formats, where appropriate, in order to have all titles of references in italics, and to have uniformity throughout the references. Have created a Notes section for quotes within refs as well as other misc. info., please take a look and check if these look good. Thanks, alx_bio 19:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Copy editing is all good.
 * Added publisher location to these, as well as to the newly converted "cite book" refs (see next)
 * Am going through and changing all book refs to "cite book", which places italics. This is an extensive edit as most refs were not cite book. Have so far gone through up to and including ===Defeat (515 CE)===
 * Yes, no problem. I have created a notes section and have converted one ref to note so far. Will continue as I go through the refs
 * alx_bio 06:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * alx_bio 06:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

On a skim it looks good. You have put a lot of work in. It will be tomorrow before I can go through your changes in detail but I think that you can be optimistic. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Contributor +1
@Gog the Mild@Alx bio Dear both, I am back at last, thank you for taking care of things while I was away! I will try to contribute to the GA process as needed. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . Good to see you back. Let me have any comments on progress so far. I don't think that there is too much still to do. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)