Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shigi Qutuqu/archive2

Shigi Qutuqu

 * Nominator(s): &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Compared to his contemporaries in the early Mongol Empire, Shigi Qutuqu stands out perhaps most for his lack of military ability—he was in command during the most serious reverse of the early Mongol conquests. Nevertheless, he had a long and productive career, serving in numerous judicial and administrative roles in China and surviving the power struggles of the 1240s and 50s until his death at 80+.

That was my nomination statement for the last FAC, which was quickly archived when IRL issues arose. This article was reviewed for GA just under a year ago by ; if successful, this nomination will be used in the WikiCup. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Source review by Generalissima
Marking myself down for this one! Would you like a spot check?
 * Thanks ; I think only the source review is necessary, but if you're willing to do a spot-check I wouldn't say no. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi do you still intend to comment? No worries if not. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)
 * , if you don't intend to comment, could you please mark yourself down as such? Thanks, &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I do intend to comment. I will do so today. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'm so sorry I wasn't able to get around to this until now. Overall, this is in good shape. I think it just needs those minor location consistency fixes mentioned. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:LEDECITE is properly followed; the one cite in the lede seems to support the Mongolian spelling and/or approximate dates, both of which make sense to cite here.
 * Early life: All statements are cited. I don't see anything controversial that would need a cite.
 * Under Genghis Khan: Much the same. Don't see any issues here.
 * Under Ögedei Khan: Ditto.
 * Legacy: Ditto. All's good in terms of stuff being cited. The footnotes, too, are all cited.
 * Formatting for the sfns is consistent. I like how you formatted the sfn on the Secret History.
 * The sources are consistently formatted. ISBNs are provided and consistently written with hyphens. JSTOR #s are provided when possible.
 * Locations are a bit messy. For one, you don't need the location when the name of the institution has its location: so no Cambridge: on Cambridge University Press nor Edinburgh on Edinburgh University Press. Additionally, the wikilinks within the locations of the publishers are stated as unnecessary within the template — I don't think these are strictly necessary to remove, but I think it would be considered good form for them to be applied consistently, and I'd weigh on the side of delinking here.
 * Sources are high quality academic sources, and seem to accurately cover the totality of this obscure figure's life. Out of due diligence, I did some digging for any additional sources, and could only find Atwood's "Informants and Sources for the "Secret History of the Mongols"" in Vol. 29 of Mongolian Studies (2007); however, I assume this is essentially rephrased in his later translation of the Secret History. The only major work that seems to discuss him at length that isn't used is The Mongol World (Taylor & Francis, 2022); I have no accesses to this work, but it might be worth taking a look at for future articles.
 * Hi . I have access to The Mongol World, and it doesn't contain anything further. I link locations only when they aren't covered by MOS:OVERLINK—in this case, that is only Abingdon and Wiesbaden. Is that ok? Also, I think including the location even when the publisher name includes it is fairly normal—for example The Mongol World does so. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, just checking if you saw the above? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't. Thank you for checking The Mongol World to assauge my concerns — and yeah, both of these are fair points. I'm good to Support here on the source review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Tim O'Doherty
Marker for now. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi do you still intend to comment? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look later tonight or tomorrow afternoon. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Went through it now, and only came up with two comments, both in the same paragraph. It's nicely written, seems comprehensive and can't see why it shouldn't get the gold star. Again, great article, no reason to clog things up over two minor points. Support. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "" - do modern historians say that the medieval view of integrity and administrative quality is wrong, and/or that Shigi Qutuqu's actions and policies are more important, or do they say that as well as having judicial integrity and administrative quality he was also good at fiscal reform? If it's the former then "while" seems OK, but if it's the latter I'd go with "and" to clear it up a bit.
 * The latter, so changed.
 * "" - Sorry if I'm being a thicko here, but do any of the preceding bits fall under the umbrella of "financial excess"? I can't see it. If not, (and again apologies if I'm misinterpreting things) does the source say anything about what was excessive? If there's nothing, I'd rephrase to something along the lines of "".
 * I have rephrased the sentence and given an example of the financial excesses.
 * Many thanks Tim. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Support from PMC
Also a marker for now, poke me if I don't get to it within a week. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Suggest footnoting or briefly contextualizing "Kurultai" in the lead as the average reader won't know this word and will have to stop and go look it up. Something like "chiefs' council" would be enough inline, or the "lit" template you use later
 * Good call, I think the kurultai reference is too specific, so changed to . Better?
 * "He was however..." this sentence has "defeat" twice, suggest swapping for a synonym
 * Might want to clarify that Ögedei was Genghis Khan's immediate successor
 * "praise his qualities of" could be cut to "praise his"
 * All done.
 * "reigns of Güyük and Möngke" any reason why not "reigns of Güyük Khan and Möngke Khan"?
 * Sounds a bit odd to repeat the regnal title—I wouldn't say "John Tinniswood has lived through the reigns of King George V, King Edward VIII, King George VI, Queen Elizabeth II, and King Charles III", I'd say "J.T. has lived through the reigns of George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth II, and Charles III".
 * Right, I see what you mean.
 * Is it worth establishing, perhaps in a footnote, when approximately the Secret History and the Jami' were written? I think noting how close or far these were from the actual events could be useful the the reader
 * Done.
 * "The raid on Naratu..." suggest reordering this sentence (or maybe adding a short sentence before it) to first say that the account is implausible. Right now you're arguing the case before saying what you're arguing, which can be less smooth for the reader
 * Good call.
 * "improbable because all of Hoelun's full-blooded children were adults" - implying she wouldn't adopt new kids because she was done with child-raising? Can this be made more explicit?
 * Since the implication you received was partially incorrect, it clearly does need to be rephrased—the focus is on the age difference between the prospective adopted siblings.
 * Overall, good clear handling of two very different historical accounts
 * As with the Secret History and the Jami', it might be worth having a touch of chronological context for Shengwu and History of Yuan
 * Year for Battle of Parwan
 * Both done
 * "more laconically by the Mongol chronicles" I'm sorry, I can't help picturing a series of irritated Mongol scribes angrily scrawling "They won. Anyway" and then slamming the scroll shut
 * As I recall, it's something like "okay, so we were defeated, sure, but right after we completetely thrashed them, so it DOESN'T MATTER"
 * This article's a little short on images - no worries if not, but what about an image of Ogedei under the section about his rule, since there's room?
 * Added.
 * "fiscal reforms to Shigi Qutuqu's implementation of the census and other reforms" - two "reforms" here. Possible to write around?
 * Tightened.
 * "dismisses his loss at Parwan in one sentence" oh my god they actually did though

That's all I got. Very interesting little article! I really enjoy your prose, it's clear and to-the-point but never becomes dry. Great work. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the compliments and the review ; a few responses above. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking good! Responded to one comment to confirm I agree with your point, the rest of the chnages look good. Happy to support. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Image review

 * Is there no image of this individual?
 * Sadly not.
 * File:Siège_de_Beijing_(1213-1214).jpeg: source link is dead and caption needs editing for style. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure what "for style" means, but I've edited it a bit . &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Matarisvan

 * Is foundling appropriate here? I am not quite sure about what the MOS suggests, perhaps "young Shigi" would be better here?
 * I am not sure why it would be inappropriate—it seems to be a proper English word, according to online dictionaries.
 * Can silk be used instead of silken?
 * That is I believe more accurate. Done.
 * Consider linking to Mongol army on first use?
 * Done.
 * What is the rationale for linking to the Jin dynasty page in two consecutive sections?
 * Error, removed.
 * "Having survived the new khagan Möngke": consider rephrasing this to "Having survived Möngke, the new khagan" to avoid SEAOFBLUE?
 * It is clear that they are not the same link because one is italicised and the other isn't.
 * Consider linking, in the biblio, to Vasily Bartold, Munshiram Manoharlal, Kim Ho-dong, Bulletin of the SOAS?
 * Thanks for spotting those four.
 * Can we add this paper by Atwood and its comments to the SHM authorship question? Atwood notes that Shigi couldn't have known about Genghis' early life at the level of detail in the SHM.
 * This took a bit of time to investigate; I have rewritten the respective sentence in the article but I haven't used this source, instead using Atwood's comments in his ultra-recent edition of the SHM.
 * Another paper I found by JA Boyle: he cites Nasawi who says Shigi was sent to attack Nishapur along with Tolun Cherbi. Boyle also cites Juzjani who says Shigi along with Sa'di and Uklan had fought in Ghor and Khorasan. Link to the paper:.
 * A good catch; I have added the detail to the article.
 * Would you be open to citing this paper by William Hung on SHM authorship: ? It mentions Shigi only twice and has very little to say, so I can understand if you do not wish to, it is not a deal breaker.
 * On account of age, I think not.
 * There seems to be a lot of research into Shigi in German, I cannot ascertain now if it is useful due to time constraints in translating entire papers. If you can read German, Weiers and Ratchnevsky have done substantial work on this, though they spell Shigi as Sigi, which makes most of their work not show up if you search using the former word. There also seem to be similar works written in French.
 * I am aware—during the 90s and 00s, much important scholarship was done by German-speaking historians in the West. However, German is not quite the lingua franca that English is, so that situation has changed in the past decade and a half; I think general comprehensivity can be achieved without relying on foreign-language scholarship.
 * Are the incidents in these papers of any value: ? I am not quite sure as they are anecdotal.
 * This is already covered in the article.
 * Hi, any thoughts on the other four points? They would expand comprehensiveness somewhat, wdyt? Matarisvan (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks exceedingly for the thought-provoking comments; responses above. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you think about making the subsections of the Biography section into full independent sections? Matarisvan (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that may work slightly better. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure about this, but shouldn't the image of the capture of Zhongdu be on the right, as per MOS:IMAGELOCATION and MOS:SANDWICH? Other than that, happy to support this one. Matarisvan (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, could I suggest some categories to add? I believe these would be justified here, wdyt?
 * - 12th-century births
 * - 12th-century Mongols
 * - 13th-century Mongols
 * - Mongol Empire task force articles (wonder why this wasn't auto added bc the article is a part of both the WikiProject and task force) Matarisvan (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, especially on the areas that are not my forte. I have added the categories with the exception of the last, which is on the talk page as I believe is normal. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My bad, I had not checked the talk page. Joining this FACR was great, props to you for coming up with such a great article even though there's not much material on the subject. Matarisvan (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Support from Kusma
Intending to review this one. —Kusma (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC) A fine article overall. —Kusma (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we know his Mongol script name? zhwiki says it is ᠰᠢᠭᠢᠬᠤᠲᠤᠭ and they also give the VPMC transliteration "sikiqutug".
 * Although I lack an RS, the script looks plausible so I've added it to the article.
 * According to the Japanese Wikipedia article, the Jami' al-tawarikh has other versions of his name ( قوتوقو نويان Qūtūqū Nūyān)
 * "Noyan" just means "commander".
 * "the Secret History of the Mongols, which alters and augments his position in early Mongol society." I do not quite understand "alters and augments" here; do we know anything about his position in early Mongol society before the Secret History?
 * Yes—see article.
 * My point (which I am not making very well) is that "The Secret History alters his position in Mongol history" seems to indicate that there was a pre-Secret History historiography where Shigi Qutuqu was described differently. However, the Secret History appears to be the oldest of the primary sources we have?
 * Yes, it's the oldest of the primary sources, but it's not older than the events described within; the sentence is meant to say that the SH makes out that his historical position was higher than it actually was. Is there a better way of putting it?
 * I think instead of "alters and augments" or " modifies and enhances" it would be simpler to just state that the Secret History has a very positive view of Shigi Qutuqu, or something of that kind. How do the sources put this?
 * That works . &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't "Hoelun" be "Hö'elün"?
 * Certainly should be; changed.
 * "Rashid al-Din's account of Shigi Qutuqu's adoption takes place more than a decade earlier." the adoption takes place earlier, not the account?
 * Good catch, changed.
 * "subsequent appointments, when he may have replaced Belgutei" who is "he" here?
 * Specified Shigi Qutuqu.
 * Can you give a hint where the Khawarazmian Empire was located? The lead at least says "western campaign" to give some very rough orientation
 * Done, and for the Jin dynasty too.
 * "fall of Kaifeng" for "siege of Kaifeng" is a bit weird as we are looking at this from the Mongol POV
 * I'm not sure what's weird, it seems natural to me. Could you explain?
 * Well, the Mongols besieged Kaifeng and captured it, so from their POV, it is a "capture", not a "fall", which is what it looks like if you are pro-Kaifeng. But no big deal either way.
 * MOS:DATERANGE advises against "1235–6" and "1203–57".
 * Fixed the first; I'm not sure where the second came from, so removed.
 * I am not educated enough to know the word corvée. Can this be glossed per MOS:NOFORCELINK?
 * It's a fairly complicated topic that's tangential to the topic, so does a simple pipe of "corvée labour" give enough indication?
 * Do people "make ... irregularities"?
 * I'll be honest, I can't think of a word that works better.
 * The link for Shihihutug University is dead (amazingly, we don't seem to have an article about this university in any language??)
 * They've revamped their website, so I've found a new link.
 * It would be great to know more about modern Mongol impressions of Shigi Qutuqu; the fact that they named their law university after him seems to indicate he is still among the most revered law people. But I appreciate that this is really hard to find out more about.
 * Yes, I don't quite know where I would start looking.
 * Thank you for your comments ; responses above. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Mostly happy with edits/reasons for not doing anything. Minor comments above. —Kusma (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Airship ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry had health issues. Reply above. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Happy now, supporting. —Kusma (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

MSincccc
I have read upto the lead. Will let you know of any further suggestions later, if any. Regards —MSincccc (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "First decades" could be changed to "early decades" for clarity.
 * Don't really see the increased clarity, but done.
 * "empire's founder Temüjin (later Genghis Khan)" could be changed to "empire's founder, Temüjin (later known as Genghis Khan)," for grammatical correctness and better readability.
 * Good call, done sort of.
 * "played an important role" could be changed to "played a significant role".
 * I prefer "important" to "significant"—the latter in this context seems more low-key than the facts.
 * A more concise version.
 * "chronological difficulties rule this account out" could be changed to "chronological inconsistencies make this account unlikely" for precision.
 * The word "however" at the beginning of the last sentence could be omitted for a smoother flow.
 * All done.
 * Rephrased version after combining the two sentences.
 * This appears to already be in the article?
 * "He was however the commander" could be changed to "However, he was the commander" so as to correctly place the adverb.
 * I thought you preferred removing the "however" (see above)?
 * "Genghis's successor" could be specified in apposition to "Ögedei Khan" for clarity.
 * In article.
 * "executed a census" could be changed to "conducted a census" for a more precise language.
 * Excellent thought, I wasn't that happy with "executed".
 * A comma could be added after "1235–1236".
 * I don't think that's necessary
 * You could replace "fiscal policies soon after" with "fiscal policies shortly thereafter" for a smoother flow.
 * I've removed "soon after", it seemed slightly obvious/tautological.
 * You could add the following phrase-- at the beginning of the final sentence to improve the narrative flow and provide context for his death.
 * ...that is also there?


 * Assuming you only wished to divide the sentence, done.
 * Not done, don't see the need.
 * Not done: there is no link between being significantly younger than his siblings and his prominence in Mongol society—what is important for the latter is his age.
 * Partly done; some changes seem optimal, other unneeded.
 * Not sure what the changes are here.
 * MSincccc (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Partly done.
 * Good call.
 * Done.
 * Nice concision.
 * MSincccc (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Partly done.
 * Good call.
 * Done.
 * Nice concision.
 * Done.
 * Nice concision.
 * Nice concision.
 * Nice concision.


 * Not done—Ratchnevsky's suggestion is not that the SH demonstrates Genghis was susceptible to external influence, but that he was open to be influenced at all.
 * Partly done.
 * This completes my list of suggestions. The article is well-written, and I would be pleased to support this nomination once my previous suggestions are addressed. I also look forward to hearing from you . Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to your response to my suggestions above . A fine article whose FAC I would like to support once I have received your response to the above. MSincccc (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and apologies for the delay—I was suffering from health issues. Responses above. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing more to add here. Support. MSincccc (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing more to add here. Support. MSincccc (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

 * Could we have a JSTOR reference for Boyle.
 * No page range for Ratchnevsky (1993)?
 * Added both.
 * "appointed to several high-ranking legal positions; he served in this capacity ". Referring to several positions with a singular "this capacity" rings oddly.
 * "While some found his decrees and judgements oppressive and biased, other sources praise his honesty and judicial integrity." The past tense "found" suggests you are referring to contemporaries. Is that so? If it is, could "praise" take a similar tense. And perhaps to even work the word 'contemporary' in, to prevent any confusion. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Adjusted both. Thanks for the comments . &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)