Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Red Cliffs


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Battle of Red Cliffs

 * Self-nom and co-nom by User:Ling.Nut and dk. A-rated within WP:MILHIST, this article has been exhaustively researched and referenced. It covers a major battle in Chinese history which is the source of many modern cultural references. It is the result of extensive collaboration by several members of WP:3K.
 * Very hesitantly and well aware of WP:BEANS, I'll say that there is no need for any reviewer to slag the Harvard referencing style due to any personal preference for the footnote style. The Harvard style is well and clearly sanctioned by WP:CITE. Ling.Nut 07:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support The...uh...weird citations you call Havard Referencing are a little hard on the eyes, but otherwise I see no reason to object. Its good, it agrees with the UTEP professors account of the battle, and above all it meets the criteria. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Object - sorry but it requires more inline citations --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 13:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: More citations? I'm sorry, but this comment could become helpful/actionable if you would indicate where you want additional citations (perhaps you may wish to refer to When to cite as well). I thank you in advance for your reply. --Ling.Nut 13:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OH I bet you just don't see the abundant examples of Harvard citation? Is that it? It's not uncommon for newer editors to think that the footnote style is the only style that exists... --Ling.Nut 13:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Harvard style is uncommon, but hardly unusable. Just because somebody's used to seeing little numbers as opposed to Harvard references doesn't make the article any less factual or incorrect. The emphasis is supposed to be on referencing the information, not the fashion of display in which it's presented. Gamer Junkie 22:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support — Concise, clear, and understandable even to someone unfamiliar with the era. Well-cited, but the maps are the best part — they're absolutely fantastic. Excellent work creating those. Definitely worthy of being a featured article. JKBrooks85 20:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support — An excellent article, you have my support.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 00:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Are there any other FAs that use Harvard referencing? I don't think I've come across this format anywhere else on Wikipedia. Tommy Stardust 03:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head, Taiwanese aborigines. I can find others if given time... --Ling.Nut 03:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't need to. It all falls within Wikipedia's rules and policy.  Nobody can argue the legitimacy of Harvard referencing other than to say that they don't personally like it. Gamer Junkie 09:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments It would be nice to have the Wade-Giles (once) for names and places; there will be English sources which use only WG for Ts'ao Ts'ao, for example. I think i know what the hill destoyed "for stone exploitation" means, roughly, but it's both vague and un-English. Was it a gravel-mine, a quarry for flagstones, or what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Hi Pmanderson, thanks for your comments. I would be very happy to comply with the suggestions in your comments, but unfotunately I would run into some roadblocks...
 * To clarify, do you want Wade-Giles after the first use of every Chinese-language name and place? To me that sounds like a stylistic issue which would need to be taken up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Use of Chinese Language) [and I note that you have made a recent comment on that forum regarding this issue]. Also relevant to this question is the essay at m:Use pinyin not Wade-Giles.
 * You will note that I also have expressed myself on the meta essay. The claim that pinyin is intuitive for anglophones who are not fluent in Chinese (the bulk of our readers) is not convincing.
 * In response to your question: where to add WG is a judgment call, based on whether what was notable in the first half of the twentieth century.  I would add it, once, to the Han generals; placenames are more complex. We sensibly use Yangtze and not the pinyin Cháng Jiāng; on the other hand, purely  modern placenames do not need it. I would add it wherever we include Chinese script, and for much the same reasons. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As for "stone exploitation", you are correct that the source of that info is a published English translation from an original Chinese-language article. That translated version uses the term "stone exploitation." I knew it was awkward when I added it, but the article simply does not specify what type of "exploiation" it is referring to. I briefly considered researching a "most likely case", but I live in fear of WP:OR. I suppose I could also email the author, but that would be a primary source. If you can suggest an English phrasing which preserves the unintentional ambiguity, I would be quite happy to modify the text accordingly. Thanks again, --Ling.Nut (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * a range of hills levelled in the 1930's to use their stone as raw material? or perhaps a direct quote from the English translation, to make clear to the reader what the problem is? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support — Lovely piece. Beautifully written and nicely illustrated. I particularly enjoyed bits like: "Even a powerful arrow at the end of its flight cannot penetrate a silk cloth". A few minor suggestions:
 * provided a line of defence that was the basis for the later creation of the two southern kingdoms Unclear. Did the line become a frontier? Or permit the creation of prosperity?
 * Typos: A few missing hyphens—a 16-year interruption, the 3rd-century historical text—oh, and fifth-century to 5th-century for consistency.
 * Tense disjunction: Although Cao Cao boasted. Perhaps Although Cao Cao had boasted or Despite Cao Cao's boasts of?
 * Slight tweak: and so lacked to and thus lacked (to avoid readings of so as an amplifier)?
 * -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 16:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think "line of defence" already implied that the line was a frontier. Other than that, I addressed all your points. :) _dk (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, very nice work. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Pmanderson, to work out the details of your suggestion... would Wade-Giles in the infobox be acceptable for the major characters? I tried to imagine how it would look after every name in the WP:LEDE, and in my mind it looks kinda cluttered... then later on we could put Wade-Giles once in the body text for a few other key people and places... --Ling.Nut (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The infobox would be a good idea. I don't think it's needed after every name in the lead anyway; Wu is probably the same in both systems, and some names are unimportant. I also commend zh-tspw in the first sentence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.