Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baljuna Covenant/archive1

Baljuna Covenant

 * Nominator(s): AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The year is 1203. A middle-aged tribal chieftain has been betrayed by his lord; his meagre forces have been annihilated in battle, and he's been forced into headlong flight with a a small group of loyalists. They camp by a nondescript body of water (lake? river? does it matter?) to gather their wits. The chieftain looks around at the men who have followed him, even into these desparate straits, and knows he has to reward such loyalty. He takes a drink of the dirty water and swears an oath of mutual fidelity; his companions return the gesture. They take for themselves a title–not a noble one, but something ignominious, reflecting their situation. The Baljunatu, the "Muddy Water Drinkers"? That's really all they are, for the moment.

Mere decades later, millions of people and half the world live in awe of the power and name of that minor chieftain, a certain Genghis Khan. His empire spans Eurasia, and his generals wreak devastation on the greatest cities of the world. And he honoured the oath he swore on that dirty shoreline all those years ago—all the Muddy Water Drinkers belong to the highest nobility in the largest land empire the world has seen or will ever know. That is the story of the Baljuna Covenant.

I created this article in userspace in late April, and moved it to articlespace earlier this month. It has received a GA review from, and now I submit it for consideration at FAC. I hope you enjoy. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude's comments

 * "hence known as the Baljunatu" - I think "subsequently known as the Baljunatu" would work better
 * Done.


 * "probably on account of the heterogeneity" - the what now? Is there a link to whatever this word means?
 * Included; explained further in the relevant section.


 * "and he, his mother, and six other siblings, were all abandoned" => "and he, his mother, and six other siblings were all abandoned"
 * I'm never the best with commas. Fixed.


 * "and Temüjin only escaped here because" => "and Temüjin only escaped because"
 * Removed.


 * "Despite the danger he waited through the following night for his surving troops to collect" => "Despite the danger he waited through the following night for his surving troops to gather"
 * Done, also apparently misspelt "surviving".


 * "emphasise the situation's exigency" - what's that last word mean?
 * the urgent needs of the situation.


 * BTW I notice that there you wrote "emphasise", but earlier you wrote "realized", so you are mixing and matching UK and US English - pick one and use it throughout
 * Done.


 * Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, . All actioned. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - "exigency" must be quite an obscure word, as I've never heard it before, but I guess it's valid so I won't quibble over that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

 * "1203 AD by Temüjin, the future Genghis Khan, and a small group of companions, hence known as the Baljunatu" I would use dashes rather than commas, which give the appearance of a serial list and that Temujin and Genghis Khan are two different people.
 * Good idea.


 * Per Criteria 3, I think one or two images in the body would be appropriate.
 * I don't think any of the available ones would be that relevant, or sufficiently cross the boundary from decorative to illustrative, for two reasons: 1) the Mongols were never great artists, so we have very medieval depictions of these events, and 2) those that have survived, found in Mongolia or China, have almost certainly not been uploaded to Commons.


 * "fortuitously wild horse" - Why was it fortuitous that the horse was wild?
 * Good catch, clarified.


 * "the Onggirat, the tribe of his wife Börte," -- did Borte belong to the Onggirat or some othe unnamed tribe? Clarify.
 * Done


 * "of the historian Jack Weatherford" -- maybe remove "the"
 * Done, but I don't think it sounds great.


 * "Palladius in the 1860s to E. H. Parker, the influential Paul Pelliot, Arthur Waley and René Grousset" -- Oxford comma missing
 * Added


 * "Jochi had been born after his mother Börte had been kidnapped" sounds a little awkward.
 * Simplified.

That's all I got. Interesting subject. ~ HAL  333  20:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, . Responded above. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I hate to be a stickler, but I'll give my 'support' if you add just one photo (maybe of the Ingoda River?). ~ HAL  333  21:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Added one of the 1206 kurultai  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. Happy to support. ~ HAL  333  14:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Support from Unlimitedlead

 * I note that Secret History of the Mongols is linked twice, and the second mention offers a brief description of the text, whereas the first mention does not. I would rectify that, and possibly remove the second link.
 * On that note, I would very briefly introduce the Secret History of the Mongols in the lead when it is mentioned.
 * Removed second link, transferred introduction to first link in body. I don't think I'd like to add in too short an introduction in the lead ("an early source", for example, is so vague it might as well not be there).


 * I do not think Mongolia needs to be linked at all, especially twice.
 * Removed. both links.


 * "Escaping two successive ambushes, the Mongol leader was cornered and comprehensively defeated": This sentence havily implies that Toghrul was the one who was defeated. I do not think Temüjin can be considered "the Mongol leader" at this point.
 * Toghrul is not a Mongol, he is a Kerait, while Temüjin is the Mongol leader because he rules the Mongol tribe. We are not yet at the stage where anyone who lives in the steppe defines themselves as a Mongol—that is the result of Temüjin's later superiority.


 * "the Mongol Temüjin" is an odd phrase. I would work in the fact that Temüjin was Mongol in the very first sentence to avoid this kind of strange wording.
 * Good catch


 * "In spring 1203, when Temüjin proposed a marriage alliance between him and Toghrul": Upon first read, I thought the article was saying that Temüjin wished to marry Toghrul. That would be quite, um, awkward. Please rephrase to spare others the embarrassment I had when I realised what you were actually trying to say.
 * Yes, I can see how that would be confusing. Fixed, hopefully.


 * Introduce Rashid al-Din Hamadani?
 * Hmm. I note that you don't suggest introducing Marco Polo in the same sentence? I don't think that quite WP:NPOV, frankly, especially considering Rashid's influence.
 * Good point! I think both people should be introduced, but it is not a significant matter of concern. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Introduce the Yuán Shǐ?
 * Done.


 * "...in the words of historian Jack Weatherford": false title?
 * Oof. This was recommended by above—my sympathies are with U (heh) on this, so I've changed to the previous version.


 * John Man (author) is linked twice in the Sources section.
 * I know this is not recommended, but I prefer this because the reader can get the full extent of information by hovering over any inline citation, rather than if they're lucky enough to hover over the right one.

Lovely to see another article from Airship. This has got to be one of the highest-quality articles I have ever read on Wikipedia: not only was it comprehensive and thorough, but it was easy to follow and pleasing to learn about. Well done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your comments and effusive compliments, . Responses above. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Everything seems to be all good now, so I am happy to support this nomination. Great work. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass
All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

 * McLynn (2015) needs a publisher location. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.
 * "in summer 1203 AD". Per MOS:SEASON, consider 'in mid-1203' or similar. Likewise in the main text.
 * Done with instances of spring, summer, and autumn.


 * "Escaping two successive ambushes". Perhaps 'After escaping two successive ambushes'?
 * Done


 * "the Keraites ... the Kereit". Is there a reason for the inconsistency?
 * Just forgetting which transliteration I'm using.


 * "honoured the Baljunatu with the highest honours"; "honoured ... honours". It would be nice to use a synonym for one.
 * Good call. Replaced.


 * "The episode was omitted ... from the Secret History of the Mongols," I think you need to give some idea of what this is for a reader to make sense of the sentence.
 * Rephrased the sentence and added, with reluctance.


 * "He was supported in his position". Does "He" refer to Jochi, Temüjin, Senggum or Toghrul?
 * Clarified.


 * "he hoped to find reinforcements and seek sanctuary across the border if necessary." "and" → 'or'?
 * Nope, reinforcements are always useful, even when seeking sanctuary, and were thus always the priority.


 * "the size of the Mongol force was very small at either 2,600 or 4,600 warriors". I am not sure that 4,000 men counts as "very small". And by "Mongol", do you mean Temüjin's Mongols?
 * Temüjin's Mongols are the only Mongols. At this point, the Mongols are simply a tribe, not a nation of many tribes. As whether 4,000 men counts as "very small", that is a) what WP:RS say and b) a small fraction of the 100,000 warriors Temüjin ruled a few years down the line.
 * Given references such as "Yesugei, a Mongol chieftain ... on the Mongol steppe ... dominant in eastern Mongolia" a casual reader may be forgiven for not realising that "Temüjin's Mongols are the only Mongols. At this point, the Mongols are simply a tribe" etc, which I do not see explained in the article. Perhaps "the Mongol force" → 'Temüjin's force'?
 * Done.


 * "the size of the Mongol force was very small at either 2,600 or 4,600 warriors ... stating Temüjin was accompanied by only nineteen followers". I am missing something here.
 * The Yuán Shǐ greatly exaggerates the situation, which I have clarified; the nineteen followers is certainly hyperbole, but probably based on a kernel of truth. Please let me know if further clarification is required.


 * "Ja'far and Hasan". Were these two individuals or groups? And what military assistance were they able to offer?
 * Does "the Muslim merchants Ja'far and Hasan" not make it clear enough that they were individuals? I am unsure how to clarify this. In any case, they were able to offer temporary economic security ;) for Temüjin's army.
 * Hmm. I would like to see the sheep thing explained in the article. A reader is likely to have some grasp of what support military leaders could offer, but less so regarding two individual merchants. However, I can't see a way of doing this felicitously.
 * Revised.


 * "in a total of nine different clans." "in" → 'from'.
 * "Over the next three years, he defeated the Naimans and Merkits". Who is "he"?
 * Good catches.


 * "he held a great kurultai". Could there be an in line explanation of "kurultai", per MOS:NOFORCELINK. (Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.)
 * Cite 19 should be 'p', not "pp".
 * Both done.

Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your comments . Responses above. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A couple of come backs above, more (ok, one, maybe two) to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Responded to the above, . Since you're already recused, and you made a relevant comment above, could I ask if you're willing to do the source review as well? I believe that's needed for a second nomination, which I'd like to be getting on with for Wikicup purposes. If not, thanks anyway for your always-pertinent comments. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I could do that. Dunno how speedy it will be, but it's gonna be at least another week before anyone looks at it with a view to closing. Possibly longer. Remember to save your 600 pointers for the last round ;-) . Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I need to get it to GA first ! AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Source review - pass
The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This candidacy has now received multiple supports and has passed image and source reviews. Could I have dispensation to nominate a second article, ? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)