Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Genghis Khan/archive2

Genghis Khan

 * Nominator(s): &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

...I don't think he needs an introduction, do you?

Encouraged by, I began work on this in November 2022. It received a GA review par excellence from late last year, and was subsequently improved at peer review by, , and. I thank all of you for your help.

If successful, this will be the first VA3 biography promoted to FA since Cleopatra six years ago; it will also be used in the WikiCup. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Tim O'D
Exciting. Marker for now: ping me if I've not done a first round by next Monday. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Read down to Defeating rivals and no real nitpicks so far. More over the next week. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Tim, any more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry Gog, slipped my mind. I'll get going. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Down to Death and aftermath and again find myself with no comments. Great work: clearly the PR and GAN have strained it into the tightest article possible. More to come (hopefully sooner than before). Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Read in full now and no bones to pick. Support. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your time, Tim. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from PMC
I love seeing obscure historical figures at FAC. I will try to get to this within a week; the full review will likely take me a bit as this is a chonky one! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * I'm not sure about the placement of "it later became the largest contiguous empire in history". It feels a bit of whiplash to go from "he ruled, after he died, he ruled"
 * I've removed a couple of phrases, I think it flows better now, and is better focused on the man.
 * "Reduced to near-poverty, they managed to survive" - could tighten this to "they survived near-poverty" (it's the "managed to" that feels most unnecessary)
 * "although Temüjin killed his half-brother Behter to secure his position" - what position did he secure? weren't they abandoned?
 * also, the "although" isn't really working here. Usually you'd use an "although" to say something that contrasts the first thing, but killing your brother to help yourself isn't really in contrast to white-knuckle survival
 * Addressing the above together: I've tightened the bit about poverty, removed the although, and specified that the killing was to secure the familial position.
 * "he began to gain followers" - do we know why or how? I know we need to be concise in the lead but it'd be nice to have context, even if it's just "His forceful personality" or "His ability to kill thirty dudes without breaking a sweat"
 * It's a bit jarring to discover that he had a wife at the same time as we're discovering she got kidnapped
 * Too many events, too little lead space. I've noted his charismatic personality and that they were newlyweds when she got kidnapped, to explain why she hasn't been mentioned earlier.
 * "possibly spending" - "and may have spent" sounds better to me, but I'm not gonna die on this hill
 * I like it.
 * "as a threat, and launched" channeling the comma master Sammi Brie here, you can remove this comma
 * "he then transformed" - you can ditch "then"
 * Done all.
 * RIP Khwarazmian Empire 1219, you guys blew it harder than a truck full of trumpets
 * I have no further gripes until the last part of the last paragraph. It feels odd to mention everybody else's feelings about him before the Mongolians.
 * I like it as a personal touch: it means the lead ends on a stable, simple note.
 * Also, "his legacy has undergone considerable reassessment in recent Western scholarship" doesn't actually tell us what his legacy was reassessed from or to
 * Rephrased. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Name & title / Sources
 * "In addition to "Genghis", introduced into English during the 18th century based on a misreading of Persian sources" - is there any more detail about this? Who introduced the error, why sources were misread, why it became the popular usage vs anything else?
 * This sort of thing happens fairly often with transliterations—if an early, well-read translation gets things wrong, the incorrect term tends to stick.. I'm fairly certain some source specified "French scholars" misread the Persian, but I can't remember where I read that.
 * I'm not ordinarily an MOS wonk, but the format for the translated titles in Sources appears to be inconsistent with Manual_of_Style/Titles_of_works.
 * Unsurprising, considering I didn't know that was a thing. Should be fixed.
 * is "received text" a general technical term? I'm not familiar with it and when I google it, it appears to apply to Biblical text
 * I was not personally familiar with it either, introduced it in this edit. I have reverted to the earlier version, does that work better?
 * "The most important Persian source" according to who?
 * Everyone. Ratchnevsky considers it second only to the Secret History, while Morgan notes that all Persian writers are eclipsed in importance by it.


 * Early life
 * Who's Paul Pelliot
 * Defined.
 * "1162 remains the most accepted date" why? best evidence, most agreement? If it's sheer numbers, you may want to reword to something like "1162 is the date accepted by most historians" or something
 * Done.
 * "but this has been placed" unclear what this refers to in this context. Does "this" mean Genghis' birthplace or the true location of Delüün Boldog?
 * Both, rephrased to hopefully clarify.
 * "The most prominent is that of a blood clot he clutched in his hand as he was born" - could maybe simplify to "The most prominent is that at birth, he clutched a blood clot in his hand"
 * Done, sort of, didn't want too much repetition of "birth".
 * "However, the Tatars recognised their old enemy, and slipped poison" rm second comma
 * Done.
 * Since Hö'elün is so prominent in the adolescence subsection, perhaps an image of her? I won't insist
 * My instinctual response was "that's not possible", but then I remembered that the Mongolian freedom of panorama laws have recently been updated, and it is indeed possible!

A number of questions here and in subsequent sections may be a result of my own ignorance of Mongolian history and/or my sometimes goldfish-esque memory. If the answer to anything I've asked is "you've misunderstood something really basic" or "it's the thing I mentioned two paragraphs ago", please say so and that's on me.
 * Rise to power - early campaigns
 * "Temüjin then chose" - lose "then"
 * Done.
 * So Genghis Khan regifted the sable cloak?
 * Yes. It may seem odd to focus on the transaction history of a single item, but I think everyone does because it highlights a) the family's lack of wealth, where one cloak is a big deal to them and b) the very practical, mercurial nature of life on the steppe.
 * The thing is, right now the passive voice puts the focus on Toghrul receiving the cloak in a way that skates over the significance of Temujin giving it. If you want to highlight what you've noted above (and I agree it's worth doing), I would rephrase it into active voice. Also, the implication of the connection between the first half (Toghrul rules but is suspicious of his own people) and the second half (Toghrul gets bribed with a sweet coat and loves Genghis Khan) isn't super clear. Is it like...he's suspicious of his own guys and that makes him susceptible to Genghis who is new and brings gifts? Is it that he's suspicious of everyone including Genghis who only barely manages to seduce him because he has a cool coat? Or a secret third thing?
 * Ah, hopefully clarified now.
 * There we go. I did make a tweak to get rid of followers twice in one sentence, but revise it at your leisure if you like.
 * I guess here again is the question of how/why Genghis "began to build a following" - was he just incredibly charismatic, or was he getting up to impressive deeds that made people want to follow him at so young an age?
 * Some is discussed in the Character section, but also people who are known to be close to the most powerful do tend to attract attention, simply by virtue of their position.
 * This is a nitpick, but "Temüjin and Jamukha camped together for a year and a half, during which, according to the Secret History, they reforged their anda pact, even sleeping together under one blanket." feels very comma-heavy. Any way it could be revised?
 * My arch-nemeses, these commas. Half of them have been exiled.
 * Also, why were they camping together? Was there another campaign going (the previous para says "the campaign was soon won" so I assume this takes places after that campaign) or were they just boys being boys?
 * Ah, this is on me not remembering the very different modern conception of "camping together". It's a nomadic society, so "camping" is not just a jaunt to the wilderness, it's the home of you, your family, your followers, and their families. To camp with another leader is to say "mi casa es su casa" except more, because it also implies "my followers are your followers, my authority is your authority, etc." I don't know if there's a way to explain that in a few words, but I've had a go.
 * Right, duh, sorry, that was absolutely one of those goldfish brain comments on my part.
 * I'm not sure the difference between anda and nokor is sufficiently clear for it to be impactful that Jamukha might have become a nokor. Can this be clarified a little?
 * Simplified into plain English.
 * "ostensibly on account of a cryptic remark made by Jamukha on the subject of camping" any more about this? Was it related to camping generally or like... their boys trip specifically
 * I can tell you exactly what the cryptic remark is: "If we camp close to the hill those who herd our horses will have their tents. If we camp beside the mountain stream those who herd our sheep and lambs will have food for their gullets." Make of that what you will.
 * So Borte is Lady MacBething Genghis Khan, here?
 * No comment.
 * Hah! I was partly being snarky but also it's a significant point that I think is getting a bit glossed over. Genghis Khan, the conquering king, the barbarian emperor, the absolute textbook example of Ambition Embodied - his wife's ambitions may have outweighed his? I think it's worth getting into, if we can, because the idea that the greatest conqueror in history may have been nudged into conquest by his wife is quite something.
 * I've reread the sources and I think I was reading too much into one sentence in May 2018, so I've rewritten that part in line to also accomodate a reviewer below.
 * Looks good to me.
 * "forty-one leaders joined Temüjin" along the lines of the camping together question, was there a campaign going? Else what are they joining him for?
 * No, they're just setting up their loyalties. It was probably obvious to all that hostilities were going to break out, and they would need to choose a side. I've also added a sentence on what was attractive about Temüjin at this point.
 * Right, yes, camping thing again.
 * Temujin acclaimed as khan - solely because of the successful campaign against the Merkits?
 * No, because he had gained the support of forty-one leaders and lots of commoners, and they wanted to say "we serve the Mongol khan!" instead of "we serve this random Mongol leader" (it just sounds better).
 * Makes sense.
 * I love getting to include a sentence like "this guy lied and said they won, but it's obvious he was lying after the fact, because of the obvious lies"
 * "Temüjin was able to subdue the disobedient Jurkin tribe" as a matter of chronology I might introduce this factoid earlier when discussing the Tatar campaign. This might be a personal quirk but to me it always feels a little odd to insert things in the format of "by the way, this happened earlier and here's what he did as a result".
 * I think too much is going on in the previous paragraph to say "oh by the way this random tribe refused to join"—they are only DUE a mention because of how Temüjin dealt with them.
 * I see where you're coming from, I still I don't love it, but I won't die on the hill of it
 * "dissatisfied tribes including the Onggirat, the Tayichiud, and the Tatars, swore to break" rm last comma I think
 * Cocking commas.
 * "existing social norms" "existing" seems redundant? if they didn't exist, they wouldn't be norms, right?
 * That seems fair.
 * "but though the ensuing battle still lasted three days" I'm not sure about the "still lasted" phrasing here. It feels like the implication is that it's unusual the Kereit held out that long despite being caught unawares - was it unusual?
 * Yes. A three-day battle is extraordinarily long, especially for a surprise attack.


 * Early reign
 * Why engage in extensive discussion of the title Genghis Khan here when you have a whole section for that above? Feel like it distracts from the history
 * I tried that originally, but you run into having to explain who Jamukha was and why Genghis wouldn't want to hold the title that Jamukha had held, and the general reader still wouldn't really understand until they'd learnt the whole Genghis—Jamukha story.
 * Mmmmm...okay.
 * It's not deeply important, but why "white bone" and "black bone" as titles?
 * The bones are the structure of the body, the white bones are the purest (as they are meant to be), the black bones are those that have been removed (?) something like that idk
 * I agree with Kusma below that linking "military decimal system" in this way is odd, as the "decimal" article doesn't really explain a military decimal system. I might unlink it entirely
 * Unlinked.
 * "even after the division of the Mongol Empire" when
 * Various points in the late 13th and early/mid-14th centuries
 * "whose father Münglig had previously been allowed to marry Hö'elün" this is confusing. When did this happen?
 * After Münglig defected to Temujin in the "Defeating rivals" section.
 * "When Temüge, Genghis's youngest brother, attempted to intervene he too was publicly shamed." by Genghis again, I assume?
 * It feels mildly confusing to go from Borte warning Genghis who still reveres the shaman to suddenly Genghis allowing Temuge to kill the guy. I'm normally the "cut the fat" poster child but I think some insulation here might help the abruptness
 * "...allowing Temüge to have Kokechu killed, he usurped the shaman's position as the Mongols' highest spiritual authority." Genghis assumed the shaman's position, or Temuge did by killing Kokechu?
 * I've rewritten some of the sentences in this section, so hopefully should be clear now; you have a lot of people acting variously in concert with and against each other, so it does get a little confusing.
 * The whole section is much clearer, thank you.
 * Perhaps this is just my browser size and use of V10 instead of V22, but the image on the left breaks the "Campaign against the Jin" subheader ever so lightly, shoving it off to the right. add clear maybe?
 * I think it's fine, most readers will be using V22.
 * Really not a lot to gripe about here. I think I said something like this in the Shigi Qutuqu FAC, but your prose is really top-notch. I appreciate your ability (and willingness!) to summarize things in a way that gets the important ideas across but doesn't get bogged down in detail
 * Thanks! Helps that there's a lot to summarize and not much space for the detail anyway.


 * Later reign
 * "might be a potential threat" feels redundant, I think one or the other is enough
 * Edited.
 * "Muhammad had however grown" - the placement of the "however" feels odd. "Muhammad, however, had grown" seems more typical (but - not dying on the hill of it)
 * I do think that same sentence is a bit overlong and comma-heavy, and might split it somewhere
 * I've rewritten the sentence, so the however is gone entirely along with many commas.
 * "Peter Golden" who's this
 * Completely random dude, no idea why he's mentioned (no not really).
 * Poor Muhammad II, history's poster child for fucking around and finding out. "Bewildered by the speed of the Mongol conquests". Buddy. Dude. My guy.
 * The convert template here wants to have the adjective parameter on to correct the grammar
 * That's a thing??
 * It sure is
 * I know he's a minor figure, but it feels odd that Shigi Qutuqu is only first mentioned here despite being Mr Genghis' adopted son.
 * If it's any consolation, there are lots of blood sons who don't get mentions at all?
 * I am consoled by this, yes :P
 * "and losing decisively" - maybe "after losing decisively" or "after a decisive loss"?
 * " he was compelled to swim across the Indus river into India" this is kind of hilarious but - compelled by whom? By his own decision, to escape with his life? Or by the victorious Mongols as a punishment?
 * The former. There's a nice picture of it on the left.
 * It is a pretty great image
 * "the omens were additionally unfavourable" this is mostly curiosity, but any idea what omens?
 * Genghis didn't get the right responses from a sheep's shoulder he was in the habit of caressing. Also, a unicorn appeared and said "Your ruler must go back home". This was either a rhino, or the shamans getting too high, or both.
 * I wish a unicorn would tell me it's time to go home when I'm sick of being at work
 * Again this may be my browser/V10 usage, but the image captioned "Depiction of Jalal al-Din crossing the Indus River..." unattractively bumps the subheader and the hatnote on the left
 * I kinda like that, sorry.
 * I hate that you like it, but it's not worth fighting over

Combining these sections under one as I don't have very many comments for them. Generally I find them to be well-written, thorough summaries of difficult, interesting aspects (especially Legacy, which could likely have its own article)
 * Family / Death and aftermath / Character
 * The placement of the family section between his later reign and his death puzzles me. It feels jarring, since we've been proceeding along chronologically and suddenly we're interrupting that to lay out his family tree and succession.
 * I've rearranged so that that it goes death, succession, family, everything else: that better?
 * Yeah
 * It also feels odd that the family section hatnotes Descent from Genghis Khan but does not discuss it whatsoever
 * Removed.
 * Context for Marco Polo and Carpini? I know Marco Polo is pretty famous, but he's not necessarily universally famous, and Carpini is much less so.
 * They're mentioned in the sources section, that's where all the source-context goes.
 * Sure but even in the sources section they don't get any context, just "works by Europeans such as Carpini and Marco Polo".
 * I don't know what context would be helpful—I could say "later European travellers"?
 * Travellers, explorers, something like that. A little bit to set up the perspective they were coming in with, you know? If they were mercenaries they're going to have different biases than if they were missionaries or merchants (I didn't set out to be alliterative there, but I'll leave it)
 * The footnote about Juzjani and Zhao Hong could work in-text, although I won't insist if you prefer it as a note
 * Oh, don't get me started. That bit has been fought over by sockpuppets innumerable since time immemorial, and I think the current version is actually agreeable to all sides, so I'm reluctant to make any changes.
 * Really?? What a bizarre thing for people to fight about.
 * Yeah, it's part of the Turkic vs non-Turkic ethnic group/genetics battle that keeps going off.
 * "showed good judgement in choosing his heir" - this feels like a subjective opinion expressed in wikivoice. Can we give some context to it? Even "modern historians agree" would be fine
 * Done.


 * Legacy
 * Left-aligned image under "Legacy" bumps the subheader again
 * That one I will move.
 * "the empire started to split" - I might give some context as to when. 5 years after his death? 30? 100?
 * "in which he will return" - perhaps better phrased as "which says he will return"
 * Done all.
 * Are there any images of the banknotes or postage stamps? Any "pop culture"-y images of Genghis?
 * Added a couple, also thanks to the new FoP laws.
 * I don't find the Mongolia section to be overdue or over-filled in the least, but I think the "Elsewhere" section could be expanded. The opinions of Russia and the entire Muslim world are each concluded in one sentence. There's really no more to be said?
 * I'll come back to you on that.
 * Further, it feels odd to hatnote "Genghis Khan in popular culture" but not actually discuss portrayals of him in pop culture
 * Removed.
 * I would detach the sentence about Russia and the sentence about the Muslim world from the paragraphs they are attached to, and make them into a separate paragraph

Okay! We've reached the end of the rainbow at last. This is an incredible piece of work and you should be proud of it. Take your time responding, I know I've left you with a lot. Cheers! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for an exhaustive set of comments. Replies are above. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've left some comments above - mainly agreement with context, one or two further suggestions. If I didn't respond, it's fine and there was nothing to say. Once again, really fantastic work here. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , I think I've addressed the two outstanding issues. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking great. I'm happy to support this. Well done. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review
Image review:

Licensing-side, everything seems good except that Serven Khaalga inscription (which is, IMO, the weakest image used in the article anyhow). The images seem high quality, relevant to the subject, and I can't think of anything that needs more illustration. However, there is some formatting concerns:
 * File:YuanEmperorAlbumGenghisPortrait.jpg - Clearly public domain. Good to go.
 * File:Secret history.jpg - Public domain.
 * File: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 - Own work upload, book itself in public domain.
 * File:OnonRiver.jpg - Own work upload.
 * File:Burkhan Khaldun mount3.jpg - CC-BY-SA 2.0 upload from Flickr.
 * File:Djengiz Khân et Toghril Ong Khan.jpeg - Public domain.
 * File:Serven Khaalga inscription.jpg - Hmm. The inscription is public domain, but the image lacks author information, and comes from a 2009 work. Just because the image contains inscriptions of an ancient law code, I'm not so sure it falls under the Mongolian copyright exemption listed.
 * That's reasonable. Commented out while I try to find alternatives. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Mongol Empire c.1207.png Made and uploaded by a Wikipedia user, good.
 * File:Temüjin proclaimed as Genghis Khan in 1206 Jami' al-tawarikh manuscript.jpg - Public domain.
 * File:Mongol Invasion of China.png Made and uploaded by a Wikipedia user.
 * File:Bataille entre mongols & chinois (1211).jpeg - Public domain.
 * File:Chingiz Khan in battle - Collection of epic poems (1397-1398), f.49v - BL Or. 2780.jpg - Public domain.
 * File:Siège de Beijing (1213-1214).jpeg - Public domain.
 * File:Genghis Khan empire-switch.svg - Translation of an own-work-upload map uploaded by a Wikipedia user, good.
 * File:Jalal al-Din Khwarazm-Shah crossing the rapid Indus river, escaping Chinggis Khan and his army.jpg - Public domain.
 * File:YuanEmperorAlbumOgedeiPortrait.jpg - Public domain.
 * File:Genghis Khan with sons (Marco Polo, 1400s).jpg - Public domain.
 * File:Emperoryuandinastycollage.jpg - Compilation of public domain images.
 * File:モンゴル政府宮殿あおり2023.jpg - Own-work upload by a Wikipedia user.
 * Sandwiching issues near the beginning of the "Early life" section: I would put both the images of books there on the right side (it almost always is the best place to put them anyhow) and move them up a little bit.
 * The Temüjin and Toghrul could be argued to go either per MOS:IMAGELOC, but when it doubt, right-align it.
 * File:Temüjin proclaimed as Genghis Khan in 1206 Jami' al-tawarikh manuscript.jpg should also be right-aligned.
 * Both maps should be right-aligned.
 * On the flipside, the portraits in the Bust Portraits of Yuan Dynasty Emperors are facing right, so should be left-aligned as to face towards the text.
 * I've moved the sources images up to prevent sandwiching, and switched the alignment of certain images. I think the remaining images look better on the left. The discussions here make it clear that MOS:IMAGELOC should not be a blanket prohibition against left-aligned images. To my knowledge, there are no actual accessibility concerns with left-aligned images, other than "look a little to the right to find the next words". &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Many images have proper alt-text, but the infobox image, the three images detailing the Mongol-Jin conflict, the crossing the Indus one, the portrait compilation, and the Government Palace are missing it.
 * Added.

Looks like just a couple things to fix. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Replies above, . Thanks for your time. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair justification (no pun intended) on the left-aligned images. Alt-text, sandwiching, and the potentially mis-licensed image resolved. Seems good to go — Support on image review. Good work as always. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Buidhe
At the article's present length, I am unable to support it. In terms of concrete suggestions on how to reduce length while maintaining comprehensiveness, I would suggest reducing the length of Genghis_Khan by half and moving that content to another more appropriate article. Seems rather UNDUE to write twice as much about how he is perceived in Mongolia compared to the rest of the world. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think 9.6K words is fine for such an article. Cleopatra has 4,000 more words. Plus Taylor Swift—a non-historical figure—has almost exactly the same amount of words. 750h+ 05:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I also wonder why it would be undue for the article to heavily discuss how Genghis Khan, probably the most famous Mongolian to ever walk on planet earth, is perceived in Mongolia. It would be odder to focus more on his perception everywhere else, I should think. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What this passage suggests is that his impact everywhere else, and attention paid to him, combined of the entire rest of the world is half that for Mongolia, which is not plausible to me. The section also goes into substantial detail that may not be necessary for the reader to understand the subject as a historical figure. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 9.6K is easily under the recommended 10k size. Since there is room, this argument would be much more persuasive if reversed: there should be more on Genghis Khan's impact on the non-Mongol world. As the single most important person in Mongolia history, it seems essential that the reader understands how his reception has fundamentally changed over time in his native country. I can't see trimming resulting in anything but oversimplification.  Aza24  (talk)   06:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I too don't think the article too long. I read it twice at Peer Review and found it no hardship, and have just given it a third perusal for FAC, with a fourth and final one to come. It is fully manageable, and is a lot shorter than some existing FAs. I don't know enough about the topic to say whether this or that section should be expanded or trimmed, but as a whole I find the article entirely satisfying.  Tim riley  talk   06:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment . Which part of the FA criteria, or which editing guidelines, prohibit articles of this length? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The same problem unfortunately took place at the FAC for the reign of Cleopatra. 750h+ 11:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That article should not have been promoted. It does not meet the FA criteria imv and would benefit from a more aggressive approach to improve conciseness by moving details to sub-articles, which would improve readability while preserving encyclopedic information for those readers seeking additional detail. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's an issue with #4, length, and #1d because of excessive detail that is better covered in sub-articles and incorrect relative size of sections. Even if you think the overall length of the article is OK, it does not mean that all content that is currently in the article belongs. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Barring further evidence, I will take objections to the length as subjective—I personally feel that it is fine, and I am glad to see that others agree with me above.
 * On whether the Mongolia section is too long I would point out that Genghis has been the most prominent figure in Mongolian culture, only rivalled by the Buddha, for most of the past 500 years. He has been alternately a deity, a legendary figure, a national hero, a national villain, and a founding father. Please note also that this article is about Genghis Khan personally, not the Mongol Empire, and that the man's personal impact on Mongolia has been far more consequential than his impact on the rest of the world, much of which is hard to distinguish from the impact of his successors. Genghis himself never went further West than modern Afghanistan, he only campaigned in Northern China, etc. Yes, his name is remembered much further afield—but only his name.
 * As Aza says above, I would be far more open to a conversation on expanding the "Elsewhere" subsection. But saying that the "Mongolia" subsection should be trimmed, is for me like protesting that Joseph Stalin is overwhelmingly focused on the Soviet Union. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If the prose size was north of 10k, I'd agree for trimming, but I think the legacy section is fine. A Legacy of Genghis Khan article might be very interesting, but I feel it's already pretty well summarized here, especially for a figure so central to the foundation of Mongolia (and whose empire had not yet reached the Eurasia-spanning heights upon his death) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a very key point here. As an individual, Genghis's importance to the outside world is heavily dwarfed by the Mongolian empire. Much of the empire's advances and effects occurred after his death, giving him an indirect (albeit essential one) connection to them.  Aza24  (talk)   18:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Although I think prose size is not a problem, I tend to agree with suggestions about a more concise "Legacy and historical assessment" section, and the creation of a separate article about Genghis's legacy. My concern is that for the time being the section implies that he is first of all a Mongolian national hero, although he was one of the most important rulers and military leaders in universal history. Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan
Hi, I appreciate that you took up this monumental task. My comments:
 * "later became the largest contiguous empire": This might be pedantic, but could we specify the year? The link says 1270 or 1309 was the year when the Mongol Empire reached its peak area.
 * No—"borders" (if they can even be called such) fluctuated significantly, along with questions of subdivision autonomy and internal cohesion.
 * "in the Mongolian steppe": "on" would be better instead of "in"?
 * Perhaps—changed.
 * "Ibn al-Athir's Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh (lit.)": reword to "the Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh (lit.) by Ibn Al-Athir" to avoid SEAOFBLUE?
 * There is an " 's " in between the links; if that is insufficient I will do as you suggest.
 * Was Hoelun pledged to Kokechu or Munglig? Consider rewording this sentence? Also do excuse my not using diacritics.
 * Rephrased those sentences.
 * Below the Defeating rivals section, could we add a See also template linking to Mongol conquest of Central Asia and Mongol conquest of Siberia? These articles have a lot of detail on the subjugation of rival tribes which readers might want to read.
 * I don't think that would be a good idea for three reasons: a) the "Defeating rivals" section would definitely be the wrong place for that, b) those articles contain information on various campaigns over multiple years, thus not fitting into any one section, and c) I regard those articles as WP:SYNTHesised messes, as can be seen from this discussion.
 * Why did Genghis dislike Wanyan Yongji? Do any sources or historians speak or speculate on this?
 * No, sorry.
 * Translate or explain chevauchee in one or two words per NOFORCELINK?
 * I don't believe this falls under NOFORCELINK any more than mountain passes or siege engineers in the same paragraph, but if it does, I'll just replace the word.
 * Do we know which cities in the Gansu Corridor were granted clemency, or at least their number against the total?
 * Ganzhou and Xiliangfu are specifically mentioned, but I think that level of detail is more suited for the dedicated campaign article, when I get around to it.
 * Link to Siege of Gurganj?
 * Already linked.
 * Why do we have nothing on the tumens? We have details on the minqads and their composite decimals but not the tumens and how Genghis reorganised them in a way which differed from the Magyars.
 * The minqan was the fundamental unit of society; the tümen was merely a military designation of many (not always ten) minqad. In any case, they were much less important under Genghis than subsequently—many minqad were not even assigned to a tümen, and the sources do not describe them in detail, showing their lack of real use in this period. I don't believe there is anything in the major sources about differentiation from the Magyars—that seems odd, considering the decimal system had been widely used in eastern military organisation.
 * In the Later Reign section, could we have a new subsection titled Other campaigns, and include details on the early invasions of India and the Kievan Rus, respectively the raids on Lahore and Multan by Dorbei and Bala and the Battle of the Kalka River, both of which were approved by Genghis?
 * Jebe and Subutai's expedition is mentioned in the third paragraph of the Khwarazmian Empire section; Dorbei's pursuit of Jalal al-Din, unsuccessful and no more than 42 days in length, has not received much attention in RS, so I think an entire subsection would be undue.
 * In the family or character section, could we mention that Genghis endeavoured greatly to educate his willing children, as mentioned in the article on Shigi Qutuqu?
 * "Endeavoured greatly" is not supported by the sources, which only state that he appointed a captured scribe as a tutor.
 * In the family section, could we mention Batu Khan as the son of Jochi, since we have already done so for Mongke and Kublai as the sons of Tolui? Also, could we add Hulegu as another son of Tolui? Otherwise we could be seen as leaning towards the Yuan and Chagatais and passing over the Golden Horde and Ilkhanate.
 * Hulegu is already mentioned, as part of the later imperial line, while no son of Chagatai is. I don't see a reason to mention Batu, nor how the article can be construed as "leaning towards the Yuan and passing over the Ilkhanate" when the section does not mention the former but does the latter.
 * "killing nokod who wavered in their loyalties": do we have any more details on this, the number of people so killed or the underlying circumstances? I think at least the number of such deaths should be mentioned.
 * The history of the Mongol Empire is not friendly to numbers. Incidents covered in this article include Kokechu, who attempted to take power, and almost Genghis' brother Qasar, who he always distrusted; not mentioned are followers who acclaimed him as khan in 1187 but subsequently turned against him.
 * Since we have the Family section between the Later reign and Death sections, could we remind readers that the siege we mention was around Zhongxing?
 * Good call.
 * What was Altan Khan's religion before converting to Tibetan Buddhism? Was it Tengrism, Taoism, Confucianism, Islam, Christianity? Whichever one it was, consider mentioning?
 * Probably shamanism, but it's unimportant to this article.
 * "the martial bodhisattva Vajrapani": consider rewording to "Vajrapani, the martial bodhisattva" to avoid SEAOFBLUE?
 * Done
 * Translate glasnost and peretroika per NOFORCELINK?
 * No, they're well-used terms in English.
 * In the Legacy section, I am inclined to partially agree with the assessment by that we focus too much on Mongolia, although I don't think that section should be trimmed but instead maintained as is. I believe we have ignored Genghis' legacy in Northwest, South and Southeast Asia. I believe we could add a paragraph on how Genghis is viewed in Korea, Japan and Southeast Asia. Also, we mention Timur only once, but it is important to note that Timur, his Timurid dynasty and the Mughals claimed legitimacy primarily due to their claimed descent from Genghis. We should consider mentioning that.
 * I am open to expanding the "Elsewhere" section—the Timur link is a good one, and I will muse on that. Seeing as Genghis never reached Korea, and none of his successors reached south/southeast Asia or Japan, I feel confident in saying that there is likely very little in high-quality scholarship on those topics, but I am open to being corrected.
 * Hi, I have significantly expanded the "elsewhere" section with details on Genghis's historical evaluation in the Muslim world, his role as legitimator in various states and societies, and his current position in Central Asia and Japan. I have not found anything on his legacy in South and Southeast Asia, nor how he is viewed there. Hope that satisfies you. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @AirshipJungleman29, the content you added was great. I don't know how I forgot about this but you should introduce the topic of the Gurkani. The word in Persian means son-in-law, specifically of women from Genghis' line. It is how the Timurids and the Mughals identified themselves, they did not self-identify as the two words I have used here and which are commonly used today to refer to them. Also, the Mughals were often mocked for being mere son-in-laws of Genghis' descendants and not being the descendants themselves, I don't know if the Timurids were as well.
 * Also, on the strategic and military evaluation of Genghis, I think you could get some material from these books, if not for this article then at least for the ones on his campaigns: ISBN 9781472810212, ISBN 9781913118228, ISBN 9781473853829. Matarisvan (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've added a line on Timur marrying into Genghis's line, but I think any more detail would be WP:UNDUE. I am aware of the books you've mentioned but don't think they provide that much more relevant detail. If you disagree please let me know. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me for now. I may or may not add more comments depending on whether I find anything to add. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the biblio, to maintain consistency, you will have to link to: The International History Review, Kim Hodong, Marie Favereau, Peter Golden, The Cambridge History of Inner Asia, George A. Lane, Hachette Books, Frank McLynn, Jack Weatherford.
 * Good catches all.
 * Change the website for Craig 2017 from www.bbc.com to just BBC?
 * Done.
 * Why have we used Hung 1951 here, when in the article on Shigi Qutuqu we preferred to use newer, updated sources?
 * At Shigi Qutuqu, the relevant parts of Hung 1951 discussed the authorship of the Secret History, which today, nearly seventy-five years later, is a debate that is still raging—there is no point citing seventy-five year old sources for a current debate. By contrast, in this article it is used to cite a definite fact which is unlikely to change, and which Hung 1951 remains the most in-depth discussion of—the matter of the Secret History transmission.
 * Thanks for an often thought-provoking set of comments ; I'll get back to you on the Timur thing. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, have you addressed all of Matarisvan's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Happy to support for promotion to FA class. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley
I was one of the peer reviewers last year; my fairly extensive comments then were thoroughly dealt with. After rereading for FAC I have nothing to add, and I am happy to support promotion to FA. This warts-and-all presentation of the man seems to me admirably balanced, the historical context is clearly explained, the sourcing is formidable and generally up to date, the illustrations are splendid and the prose highly readable. I could do without some of the slightly unnecessary blue links – age of majority, clemency, command structure, defection, discipline, fortifications, funeral procession, royal court and wrestling for instance – but I don't press the point. The article meets all the FA criteria in my view. –  Tim riley  talk   13:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tim, much appreciated; I'll have a look at those blue links. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

MSIncccc

 * Marker for now. Ping me if I have not left any comments by Friday. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I will leave the remaining comments later. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * Using "eldest" because it is the correct term in British English for the firstborn child, providing greater clarity and precision.
 * I've never heard that before—can I have a source?
 * In British English, "eldest" is preferred over "oldest" when referring to the firstborn child in a family, which aligns with the formal tone required for a featured article. Source - Oxford English Dictionary (OED): "Eldest" is specifically used for people, particularly within a family context, while "oldest" can refer to people or things in a general sense. The OED definition clarifies this usage distinction【56†source】.
 * That seems fair, I'll adjust the article. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When Temüjin was eight, his father died and his family was abandoned by tribe. Using "their" in place of "its".
 * Tim riley pointed out at the PR that this changes the subject from singular to plural mid-sentence.
 * Dropped "near" before "poverty".
 * Why?
 * You could also retain "worked together" but the rest of the suggested version is a definite improvement.
 * Partially done.
 * Temüjin retreated, then regrouped and overpowered Toghrul; after defeating the Naiman tribe and executing Jamukha, he was left as the sole ruler on the Mongolian steppe. could be replaced with  for a more concise phrase.
 * That wouldn't work with "after" at the beginning of the phrase, so I am inclined against the change.
 * and Dropped the comma as it follows the British convention of not placing a comma after introductory phrases.
 * Never heard that before either—can I have a source?
 * The same convention has been followed in the articles of British politicians, businessmen and members of the British royal family. According to The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, the comma after introductory phrases is often considered optional if the phrase is brief and clear. This aligns with contemporary editing practices that frequently omit the comma for conciseness and readability when the meaning remains unambiguous. Links-, and.
 * I don't think two commas greatly reduce concision, and in fact they enhance readability to me. This source indicates that using commas with introductory phrases is the traditional route in BrE, so I'll continue using them. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Preferred version.
 * I like it. Changed.
 * Thanks for your time . &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no further suggestions for the prose of this section. I will leave further comments later. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Name and title
 * What is the improvement?
 * What is the improvement?
 * Birth and Childhood
 * Early life section
 * Replaced the colon with a semi-colon and dropped a redundant comma.
 * Done the first, not the second.
 * By using this version (or similar ones), the use of "he" becomes clearer.
 * Good call.
 * Dropped the comma after "ally".
 * Done.
 * Adolescence
 * Dropped the last comma as it is unnecessary.
 * I will return with further suggestions later. Looking forward to your response @AirshipJungleman29 both to these as well as to the previous comments. It's been quite sometime since I last heard from you. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will get round to your comments when I have the time ; there is no reason to keep pinging me. Thanks, &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Sources
 * His contemporary Juvayni, who had travelled twice to Mongolia and attained high position in the administration of a Mongol successor state, was more sympathetic. Added "a" before "high position in the administration..." which is more grammatically correct.
 * Done.
 * I suppose you refer to the hostility of the accounts mentioned in Juzjani's article; hence this phrase is more suitable in British English.
 * No, I refer to "the hostility of his chronicle".
 * Will an article on Zhao Hong (Song diplomat) be created anytime in the near future? If not, should the red link still be retained?
 * See WP:REDLINK—I see no reason why the article could not be created.
 * I have no further suggestions for this section and will continue with the article later. Looking forward to your response @AirshipJungleman29. MSincccc (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Adolescence
 * Dropped redundant comma.
 * Removed.
 * Replaced colon with a semi-colon.
 * The clauses are related, so a colon is proper use.
 * Dropped "full-" before brother.
 * The distinction is important. Belgutei was also Temüjin's brother, but not his full-brother.
 * I have read upto the "Rise to power" section and will leave further suggestions later. MSincccc (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, . &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Kurultai of 1206 and other reforms'
 * No, it was not to diminish loyalties, it was to break the whole concept of loyalty to tribes.
 * The first half misrepresents the source, the second half doesn't make grammatical sense.
 * No they were just minor suggestion from my end. Are you disappointed with them? Anyways, I will be leaving detailed suggestions for the rest of the article later. Looking forward to your response @&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29. MSincccc (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have read upto Later reign: western expansion and return to China (1216–1227) and will leave further suggestions later. MSincccc (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No they were just minor suggestion from my end. Are you disappointed with them? Anyways, I will be leaving detailed suggestions for the rest of the article later. Looking forward to your response @&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29. MSincccc (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have read upto Later reign: western expansion and return to China (1216–1227) and will leave further suggestions later. MSincccc (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I have read upto the Legacy and historical assessment section. Sorry for the delay. I will be leaving my final comments sometime this week. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire (1219-1221)
 * Don't see the "attained"-->"assumed" improvement.
 * Replaced colon with semi-colon. You could also introduce Peter Benjamin Golden in a word or two.
 * The clauses are related, so a colon is proper use. Glossed Mr Golden.
 * Suggested phrase.
 * Added.
 * Could this sentence be rephrased in order fro it to become clearer as far as its meaning is concerned?
 * What is unclear? Jalal al-Din moved southwards, gathering forces. At the Battle of Parwan, he defeated a Mongol detachment commanded by Genghis's adopted son, Shigi Qutuqu. Seems fine to me.
 * ...is there a change?
 * Return to China and final campaign (1222–1227)
 * Replaced with "he" as his name appears in the sentence preceding this one.
 * I don't think that's helpful.
 * Could use his first name at the beginning of a new paragraph.
 * Done. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Trimmed along those lines
 * Good catch
 * Trimmed along those lines
 * Good catch
 * Good catch
 * Good catch

I will be leaving further suggestions later. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi MSincccc, it's been a couple of weeks, so I am checking to see if you are ready to comment further yet. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gog the Mild I left a few suggestions earlier today and would be wrapping up my list of suggestions soon. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Elsewhere
 * Not done, because "its first instinct" would be somewhat confusing.
 * Altered similarly to clarify.
 * Altered similarly to clarify.
 * Altered similarly to clarify.

Minor suggestions above. See if you can implement them @AirshipJungleman29. Rest of the article is fine. Support. MSincccc (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your extensive comments. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review – Pass
Will do soon.  Aza24  (talk)   18:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Formatting
 * A bit confused with your linking of locations. What is the pattern here? I'm guessing you're always linking unless they're well-known, i.e. London and New York. But then I question linking Oxford & Cambridge
 * That is the pattern: Oxford shouldn't have been linked, and Cambridge wasn't (Cambridge, Massachusetts is)
 * Some kind of identifier for Togan 2016 would be nice, ISBN, OCLC or something of the sort
 * It would make sense to include the editors of Golden 2009 –  Aza24  (talk)   21:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Joel Achenbach has an article
 * Added all.


 * Reliability
 * The reliability of this article's sources are excellent. All Academic from reliable publishers or high quality news articles when necessary.
 * Some of the sources err on the side of older publishing dates.
 * Boyle, Kwanten, Kagchid and Hung seem fine—they're all used sparingly (once each) and for a specific reason.
 * Given that Barthold is an updated edition, edited by a contemporary scholar, that seems suitable. But I do wonder if there are newer sources available, since the source is cited a handful of times.
 * Pelliot seems to have similar issues as the above. Its an older, albeit important source, but used quite a few times. Some of these are unavoidable, but I do wonder if many of them could be switched with newer sources.
 * I can try to look to see if I can swap Barthold out, but Pelliot is only used to cite details of language, and as such will be harder to swap out. However, as they are possibly the two most influential Mongol historians ever, still cited by the highest-quality sources today, I think they are fine as stopgaps.
 * Fair enough, as long is there is a well-reasoned rationale, and its not simply an oversight.


 * Verifiability
 * No issues here. Happy to do spotchecks if requested by the coords –  Aza24  (talk)   04:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks, sorry for the delay. Responses above. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries, everything looks good. Pass for source review. Again, I'm happy to do spotchecks if requested. –  Aza24  (talk)   17:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Kusma
Planning to join the fun. —Kusma (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

An interesting read; I look forward to being able to support once some issues have been addressed. —Kusma (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Name and title: The source (Pelliot 1959) just talks about "Chingis", not about "Chingis Khan". In particular, the Chinese in the source is 成吉思 and the Persian is just چنگیز The "Khan" title should probably be treated separately (or a source used that discusses "Genghis Khan", not just "Genghis").
 * Fair enough, removed.
 * I think the Mongolian in this section is still too long (it looks too long), but I could be wrong.
 * Sources: I just tried to find out who the "Zhao Hong" mentioned here is (and to find his name in Chinese characters). The Cambridge History of the Mongol Empire (TWL) seems to indicate he is actually Zhao Gong (趙珙) who wrote a book Meng Da beilu (蒙韃備錄); see zh:蒙韃備錄 or de:Mengda beilu. Can you cross check this with your other sources?
 * I had a conversation with about him at Talk:Genghis Khan/Archive 11. Most sources (Ratchnevsky 1991, Buell 2003, May&Hope 2023, ) use "Hong", and only Atwood 2004 (in addition to the CHME) uses "Gong", so I'm inclined to stick with the former?
 * I would suggest to at least make a footnote that says there is a different name, and perhaps to mention the name of his book (after all, our source nowadays isn't a Song-era diplomat, but his book). I can't tell which sources are better for Gong vs. Hong, but I agree "Zhao Hong" is reasonably common also in relatively new scholarly sources. The (not so new) Cambridge History of China mentions him twice  as "Chao Hung" (Wade-Giles transcription for "Zhao Hong"). The second link actually has some comments on sources on pp. 699–700; I found it interesting that they claim that Travels to the West of Qiu Chang Chun (Arthur Waley's translation here) "contains the only eyewitness description of the empire's founder," meaning Genghis Khan. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Added a footnote.
 * That works. I would personally add an pointing to de:Mengda beilu, but I am not expecting you to.
 * It might be good to say when the Persian and Christian sources were written.
 * Done but vaguely.
 * A rough indication of the century was all I was looking for; perhaps this could also be added for Marco Polo and others?
 * Why not link Qojin and Tümelün? (various other Wikipedias also available)
 * I'm not sure that those two are notable, so I've unlinked them.
 * Various other red links could also perhaps use if articles exist somewhere (I have not checked in detail)
 * I am not good with checking either.
 * Defeating rivals: "humiliated the bodies of leaders who had opposed him" what does humiliating the bodies (as opposed to the leaders) mean?
 * They were dead, and he did the 12th-century equivalent of teabagging. I've changed "bodies" to "corpses" to make their death more explicit.
 * Early reign: " military decimal system " what do you mean by this? It should at least be unlinked and maybe glossed.
 * Done.
 * Consolidation of power: "Most Xia troops were stationed along the southern and western borders of the kingdom to guard against attacks from the Song and Jin dynasties respectively" that doesn't make sense given the map: the Jin were to the East?
 * That is indeed correct.
 * Defeating rebellions and Qara Khitai: "the subdued Hoi-yin Irgen tribes in Siberia" do we know a little more precision where this is? Siberia is larger than Canada...
 * Glossed above as "a collection of tribes on the edge of the Siberian taiga"; the "in Siberia" was added because a previous reviewer felt the reminder would be helpful.
 * Invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire: no idea why, but in my settings (300px thumbnails) there is no writing on File:Genghis Khan empire-switch.svg. SVG bug??
 * Probably, don't know how to fix that.
 * I'll try to ask for technical advice, but there is nothing for you to do here.
 * Gloss Peter Golden
 * Done.
 * "Ogedei" should be "Ögedei", here and in at least one other place.
 * Done.
 * I would recommend to recruit a military history expert to read the campaign sections, if you haven't already.
 * Gog and UC had lots to say at PR.
 * Succession: "reducing the wealthy city" not sure this is the best possible expression
 * Changed to "besieging".
 * Death and aftermath: "may have buried the khan in the Ordos to avoid his body decomposing in the summer heat" why would the Ordos Plateau help? Gloss this? Or is it the Ordos Desert?
 * Clarified.
 * "Yelu Chucai" should be Yelü Chucai ("lu" and "lü" represent different sounds in Chinese).
 * Fixed.
 * Legacy: it would be nice to hear a little bit more about perception outside of Mongolia. Is the "modern Muslim world" completely united in its assessment? (One could imagine Iranians to have different opinions from Uyghurs). Did the view of Genghis Khan among historical Europeans depend on whether the Mongols came to their lands in the 1200s? (Ukrainians might think about him different from French). Did Western European knowledge of Genghis Khan come only via Marco Polo or did medieval historians learn anything from Mongol-occupied Eastern Europe?
 * Will do.
 * Length: the article is long. It probably has good reasons to be long. If cutting is desired, I would suggest to leave the interesting "Legacy" section alone and to summarise / subarticle-ise more of the comparatively boring sections about the military campaigns. (Other people probably disagree).
 * I think they do, and I am naturally one of them.
 * Thanks, responses above ; I'll come back to you on the legacy question, which I've been doing much thinking about
 * Mostly discussed Zhao Gong/Hong above. Looking forward to reading what you come up with for legacy. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , I have expanded the "Elsewhere" section with more details on Genghis's historical and modern assessment in the Muslim world. In general, there is not the level of detail you were hoping for with regard to Europe. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not finding more is OK if you have searched. I like the Japanese legend about Yoshitsune, it seems very odd (this source seems to trace the history a bit further back). I do have a further comment: At the start of the paragraph "Genghis was also a source of political legitimacy" I think slightly more context would help: you are talking about legitimacy of 14th-15th century rulers in Muslim territories that had been conquered by Mongols in the 13th century (and were lacking other legitimacy like descent from Muhammad or its family). Without such context it is a bit surprising that there is a paragraph on Mongol legitimacy between two Arab/Muslim paragraphs. —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Does the clarification work ? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it works OK now, happy to support. —Kusma (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Remsense
Ping me if I don't get to this by Wednesday.  Remsense  诉  18:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not wednesday and I'm not airship, but I'm pinging you :P Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ping! Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing, as I don't feel I'm presently qualified for this. Really sorry. Remsense  诉  15:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'll try to get back to the Chinese characters PR soon. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from HAL
Much respect for tackling an article like this. Comments to come soon. Ping me if I go AWOL. ~ HAL  333  14:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Over the next decade and a half, Temüjin and Börte would have --> "Over the next decade and a half, Temüjin and Börte had" per WP:WOULDCHUCK
 * This same issue pops up several times:
 * As he would later go on to overthrow that state --> "As he later overthrew that state"
 * later known as the Baljuna Covenant, to his faithful followers, which would later grant them exclusivity and prestige -- also has a repetitive use of "later"
 * the white tuq pictured here represent peace, while a black tuq would represent war - Why would "would" only be used for black tuq?
 * whom they would serve and who in return would evaluate
 * a grant which the Taoists would later use to try to gain superiority over Buddhism
 * which would become the Chagatai Khanate
 * and who would succeed his father as ruler of the empire
 * You get the point. Check all other uses of "would" to determine if they're actually necessary. Some (e.g. for the subjunctive) certainly are of course.
 * Removed all which are (to my eye) unnecessary.

That's all for now. Nice work. ~ HAL  333  00:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "that the chronology of the work" --> that the work's chronology" for concision
 * "the historian Paul Ratchnevsky notes that Temüjin himself may not have known the truth" -- Ratchnevsky is deceased, so I might change that to "noted"
 * Done both, the second at all relevant points.
 * Should "birth-name" be hyphenated? It isn't per the Oxford, Cambridge, and Collins dictionaries.
 * Separated.
 * "a motif in Asian folklore which indicated the child would be a warrior" --> "a motif in Asian folklore indicating the child would be a warrior"
 * Done
 * "prestigious Onggirat tribe" -- How was the tribe itself 'prestigious'? Were they wealthy? Powerful? Is a better word/explanation needed here?
 * All of the above? I think "prestigious" is a good word for the context.
 * "they exchanged knucklebones" - Their own? Of some kind of animal? Is this an idiom for a fistfight?Further elaboration is needed.
 * No, "knucklebones" refers to a variety of historical games. See knucklebones, or shagai for the Mongolian variant.
 * "at the age of eleven" --> "at age eleven" would suffice.
 * Done.
 * "before allowing him to escape" - was he holding him against his will? Did he simply aid his escape?
 * Changed "allowing" to "helping" for clarity.
 * Maybe reword "an adolescent named Bo'orchu who aided him in retrieving stolen horses" as "Bo'orchu, an adolescent who aided him in retrieving stolen horses" but feel free to disregard.
 * "had been lost" --> to the less literary and more concise "had died"
 * Done both.
 * "Ratchnevsky has questioned if Temüjin actually became Jamukha's nökor" - I know you previously defined nokor as "personal companion", but the way this is worded suggests there is some weight to this? Likely some cultural significance? Could you explain/clarify?
 * Someone above mentioned this as well; I've put it in plain English.
 * "cryptic remark" - Could you explain this remark, maybe in a footnote?
 * "Temüjin was able to subdue" --> "Temüjin subdued"
 * Done both.
 * "being termed" -- I don't think "being" is needed.
 * Removed.
 * Maybe change "to catch the Kereit unawares" --> "to ambush the Kereit"
 * Done
 * Thanks for the comments, replies above. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, gentle reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, do you have any further comments? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * HAL has been inactive since June; it seems unlikely that they'll comment further. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

with the above in mind, is this ready for promotion or are more reviews needed? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)