Wikipedia:Peer review/Genghis Khan/archive2

Genghis Khan


I have been working on this article for 413 days, and I think it's finally complete. Any comments at all will be most appreciated—I've also nominated this article at GAN, but getting to FA standard is the end goal here. Thanks, AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
This is a big article of nearly 10,000 words, and it will take me a few goes to deal with it. My first comments are solely on the lead. Let me begin by saying that I hate writing leads (as do many other editors) and I congratulate you on this one: a good, clear overview. More anon. This is clearly first-rate stuff.  Tim riley  talk   15:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Twas the last bit of the article to be written, and is probably the worst part.
 * "it later became the largest contiguous empire in history" – do you mean in history up to that point or in history up to today?
 * Up to today—the British Empire was larger, but non-contiguous.
 * Better make that clear, I think.  Tim riley  talk   19:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "the majority of his life" – a touch woolly: wouldn't plain "most" do?
 * Done.
 * "his family was abandoned by their tribe" – switch from singular to plural in mid-sentence.
 * Oops.
 * "At a kurultai in 1206, Temüjin formerly [you mean formally] adopted the title "Genghis Khan"" – two things here. First, for the lead, mention of the (duly linked) kurultai seems to me unnecessary detail; and secondly it would be useful to be told from the start what the two words mean. (I see it's dealt with in more detail in the main text, but I think it should be succinctly covered in the lead.)
 * Facepalm on the formally. On the kurultai, it is notable enough that I intend to create a dedicated article for it in the future. On what "Genghis Khan" means, I have added "the meaning of which is uncertain"—best I can do, apologies.
 * Fine  Tim riley  talk   19:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * After preventing a quasi-coup – what is a quasi-coup?
 * A power grab that doesn't quite reach a formal coup d'état. Does "coup attempt" work better?
 * Much.  Tim riley  talk   19:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, Tim. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Birth and early life
 * "Yesügei requested a meal…" – I think all this could do with a bit of caveating – "according to XYZ" or some such.
 * Most RS take this as probable fact, as it is a) described in multiple chronicles and b) dovetails nicely with other information. See Broadbridge, for example: "the Tatars may well have had a hand in Yisügei’s demise. Their feud with the Mongols predated Yisügei and is recorded in other historical sources than merely the Secret History. More significantly, Temüjin treated the Tatars very badly when he conquered them decades later. Furthermore, other historical sources confirm that Yisügei died young..."


 * Adolescence
 * "exacerbated by regular disputes" – regular, i.e. at set intervals or merely frequent?
 * Frequent. Will adjust. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * More from TR:
 * Kurultai of 1206 and reforms


 * "the etymology and meaning of which has been much debated" – two nouns with a singular verb
 * "Temüjin's eschewment" – the word is in Webster's American Dictionary of English Language, 1864, but is unknown in BrE. The Oxford English Dictionary and Chambers' both give the noun as eschewal.
 * "Having attained control over one million people and over fifteen million animals" – does the second "over" mean "more than"? If so it would make for a smoother read if you used that phrase.
 * Changed all.
 * "the entirety of Mongol society was reorganized into a decimal system of military organization" – this doesn't read well: "the entirety of Mongol society" is wordy, and "reorganized into a … system of … organization" goes round in circles
 * Simplified.
 * "Each minqan operated as both political and social units" – switching from singular to plural in mid-sentence.
 * "loyalty to the khan and the ruling family ... occupied solely by the families of the Khan" – here and throughout you need to decide whether the job title is or is not capitalised.
 * Fixed both (I think).


 * Campaign against the Jin (1211–1215)
 * "The three-pronged chevauchée" – I say! This will surely have Gog the Mild surging in. He can't resist a chevauchée, of however many prongs.
 * Precisely my thoughts when I saw the word in Waterson ;)
 * "the city was sacked and looted" – is there a difference? Neither Chambers nor the OED thinks so: sack "To give over (a city, town, etc.) to plunder by the soldiery of a victorious army"; loot' "To plunder, sack (a city, building)".
 * Good point.


 * Invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire (1219–1221)
 * "winter 1220/21" – I think the Manual of Style stipulates en-dashes rather than oblique slashes for date ranges.
 * "Before his death, he nominated his eldest son Jalal al-Din as his successor" – Do we need the first three words? He would hardly have nominated anyone after his death.
 * "set out on a massive 7,500 kilometres (4,700 mi) expedition" – do we need the the rather editorial "massive"?
 * Fixed all.

A few general points:
 * "likely" – for some unfathomable reason "he likely was" and "he likely did" etc are strangers in BrE. Odder still, add an adverb and the adjective is suddenly OK: "he very likely did" or suchlike. There are two plain "likelys" in the text that would benefit from a "very" apiece.
 * Added for the one remaining.
 * duplicate links: unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary no term should be blue-linked more than once. There are numerous duplicate links in the present text, both to terms such as "honorific" and "puppet ruler" and to names such as Tolui, Ongud, Temülen, Jebe and many others.
 * I believe that MOS:DUPLINK recently changed, but there probably are still too many for that. Will have a run-through.

More comments to come. –  Tim riley  talk   11:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Tim. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Last lot from TR
 * Death and aftermath
 * "off-limits to all but its Uriankhai guard" – the BrE phrase for the AmE "off limits" is "out of bounds"


 * Succession
 * "Tolui had to be convinced by Yelu Chucai to hold the kurultai" – in BrE you don't convince to: you persuade to or convince that.


 * Legacy and historical assessment
 * "he likely didn't codify the written body of laws" – "likely", as above, and for "didn't", see MOS:N'T
 * Adjusted all.


 * Mongolia
 * "during their occupation of Inner Mongolia, Imperial Japan funded" – should "Imperial Japan" take a plural pronoun?
 * "as a non-Russian hero who could serve as an anti-communist figurehead, this attitude swiftly changed" – dangling modifier.
 * "Modern Mongolians tend to eschew" – this is the third "eschew" – perhaps one too many, and it seems in any case an odd word here. You mean, I think, that they downplay the conquests and emphasise his other achievements.
 * "making Mongolia the center" → centre
 * Fixed all.


 * Elsewhere
 * "During the 14th century, as shown by the works of Marco Polo and Geoffrey Chaucer" – I seem to recall from my Eng Lit studies in the 1960s that although the nobyl king clepyd Cambuskan in The Squyers Tale takes his name from Genghis Khan the character is more based on Kubla Khan, which makes sense if Chaucer drew on Marco Polo's book. If this is correct (and I'm quite prepared to be told my memory is playing tricks) it might be as well to be cautious about saying that Polo and Chaucer characterise Genghis as just and wise.
 * I think that Marco Polo also describes Genghis as the just/wise/noble dynasty founder, so I think it's fine.

That's all from me. Please ping me when you go to FAC. –  Tim riley  talk   14:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do Tim. Many thanks once again. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild
Chevauchées eh, how could I resist? I will start with a copy edit. Feel entirely free to revert or query anything you don't like or understand. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "a servant of the Jin dynasty". Do you actually mean that he worked as a butler or valet?
 * As a sort of mercenary/asylum seeker/tenant, probably. Changed to "subject", which probably works better.
 * "Genghis began to consolidate his power over a larger empire". I think you need to say how he gained this larger empire before talking about consolidation.
 * Simplified.
 * "launched a campaign against the Jin dynasty" I think it would be more helpful to say where he invaded, rather than who its rulers were. And consistent with "he led a large-scale raid into the neighbouring Western Xia kingdom" and "annexed the Qara Khitai state in Central Asia" either side of it.
 * Addressing these both together: Chinese and sinicized states are defined by their ruling dynasty, not given a separate name as a state itself. See Song dynasty, Ming dynasty, etc. Same goes, here, for the Western Xia and the Jin dynasty (1115–1234).
 * "besieging the rebellious Western Xia". You earlier described Western Xia as a kingdom; how does one besiege a kingdom?
 * "a two-year interregnum followed that kingdom's destruction". No, the interregnum commenced with the Khan's death.
 * "a deified demigod". You are going to have to explain this to me. How can a demigod be deified? I mean, it's already in the job description.
 * "the Secret History is valued more highly because ..." Valued more highly than what?
 * "Toghrul ruled hundreds of miles". Miles are linier measurements, should that be 'square miles'?
 * "forty-one named leaders joined Temüjin". Named by whom? I assume that the leaders who remained with Jamukha also had names.
 * Good catches all. Simplified.
 * "Zhao Hong recorded that the future Genghis Khan spent several years as a slave of the Jin." this is presented "as no other source convincingly explains Temüjin's activities between Dalan Baljut and c. 1195." Ok, fine. But "he probably profited in the service of the Jin", to the point of "having retained significant power". This is not what I would have anticipated for either a slave or a servant. I'm not sure what the sources let you do about it mind.
 * If you couldn't profit in the service of the Jin, no steppe leader would flee there. You'd gain wealth and the backing of powerful allies, but you'd run the risk of losing legitimacy and your following, and vice-versa if you were a disgraced Chinese official. As it happened, in 1196, Temüjin's aims coincided with the Jin's, so they probably backed him more than usual. Thanks very much for the comments Gog. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. I understand. But that is incompatible with him being a "slave" or a "servant".
 * Not really—servants and slaves can profit in their service, it just doesn't happen very often.

There is no particular need to reply to each point. Or any. This is PR, so it is not as if you're trying to get a support out of me. I'll carry on working through, but probably episodically. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Tatars, who had begun to exert their power." Needs tweaking, ie one assumes that they had exerted some power somewhere in their previous existence. I suspect that they were insufficiently enthusiastic about falling in with Jin/Mongol plans, but I don't know if your sources would support that.
 * "humiliated the bodies of leaders". I don't think you can humiliate a dead body. What do the sources say? 'mutilated'? Humiliated their tribes?
 * You can definitely humiliate corpses.
 * "After eliminating their leaders". Does this mean killing them? If so I suggest saying so.
 * Maybe red links for battle of Yedi Qunan and battle of Jej'er Heights?
 * Bibliography: Barthold; McLynn; Street; and Waterson do not have publisher locations.
 * I don't believe Street was ever published in written form. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In the succession box at the bottom, why is "Great Khan" in italics?
 * As this is the English Wikipedia, why "Temüjin held a kurultai (lit. '"gathering"')" with the foreign word used and the actual English text in parentheses? Which anyway seems to breach MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." Perhaps 'Temüjin held a large political and military council (a kurultai)'? (As with the later "subdivided into units of hundreds (jaghun, jaghat) and tens (arban,  arbat)".)


 * kurultai. Foreign words should use lang templates rather than just be put in italics.
 * "Genghis' senior nökod were appointed". At which point a reader scratches their head, swears, and starts backtracking though the article looking for what a "nökod" is. It is a long search. Why not write the article in English?
 * For the same reason your articles e.g. First Punic War uses terms like "corvus", "quinquereme", and "consul". AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Genghis allowed certain loyal commanders to retain the tribal identities of their units ... Chigu and Alchi of the Onggirat ... were granted three minkad each." I don't see what "were granted three minkad each" has to do with "Genghis allowed certain loyal commanders to retain the tribal identities of their units".
 * "a guarantor of loyalty". Whose? And why/how?
 * "and the basis of governmental administration". How did a military bodyguard serve as "the basis of governmental administration"?

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "they would serve in all respects". What does "in all respects" mean?
 * "would evaluate their capabilities and their potential to govern or command". This suggests that governors and military commanders were sometimes (or usually; or always?) drawn from the keshig. Is this so? If it is, perhaps this could be more clearly indicated?
 * Gog the Mild, on the first point: I've come across the word kurultai several times reading about the Mongolians, so while we agree on the appropriateness of foreignisms, I feel like this one is warranted. Remsense  留  12:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Your call. Foreign words which are not proper nouns should use lang templates, not just be in italics.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "A Mongol ambassador was sent with two companions to avert war, but he was killed and his companions humiliated." Is it known how he was killed and/or who was responsible? Eg, did he die in a tavern brawl, was he assassinated on Muhammad's orders, etc?


 * You start "the lands of his three elder sons were located in the west:", then go on to list four sons.
 * There are still cases of kurultai not in lang templates. All foreign words, other than proper nouns, should use lang templates.


 * Cite 165, Liu & Cheng - no ISBN/OCLC, no publisher.
 * The titles of books should be in title case.
 * "records that his father-in-law remarked on". Whose father-in-law?
 * Legacy and historical assessment: any reason why Genghis's name is always given in full in this section?

That's it from me. I look forward to going through it again at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

UC
Commenting by request; to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * : could we somehow get the word pastoralist into the earlier description of the Mongol clans, so as to be clear on what actually changed here?
 * Rephrased the sentences to better summarise the article.
 * : Suggest Temüjin was defeated: he could be either.
 * I believe that's what I had originally. Restored.
 * I would echo Gog that e.g. or similar would be a fairly cheap and very useful addition.
 * Rephrased.
 * : if Western Xia is a place, who should be which; if it's a people, it should be the Western Xia.
 * Earlier version restored.
 * Per MOS:QUOTE, glosses like should be in single quotes.
 * Done, I think?
 * : if we're going to talk about more recent historians, we should give a rough sense of when Waley was writing.
 * : a very rare word: "as having a phobia of dogs"?
 * Is it Jami' al-tawarikh or the Jami' al-tawarikh? We're inconsistent (I'd also translate that name on first use).
 * All done.
 * Rashid al-Din should be shortened to Rashid on second mention; al-Din is not a surname
 * Oops. Fixed.
 * Would similarly translate Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh
 * Done.
 * : most people would consider Georgians and Russians to be European.
 * Certainly not Georgia at this time frame, perhaps not Russians, but that's very tangential so I've deleted that.
 * : does legendary mean "fictional" or "astonishingly successful"? If the former, I struggle to see how she can be descended from him ("whose family claimed descent from..."?): if the latter, this reads as WP:PUFFERY. Either way, it's ambiguous as presently worded.
 * The former. Fixed.
 * : I don't totally understand this: in particular, I'm not clear how Hö'elün's rejection of one of these brothers would have encouraged them to stick by her.
 * It goes the other way; clarified, but the whole situation is very unclear.
 * : I don't think this was traditional (or at least not normal) for the Mongols in this period, was it?
 * Good point.
 * : we haven't actually said that these incidents are traced (entirely?) to the Secret History
 * Rephrased.
 * : perhaps a little unclear as to exactly who reached the age of majority.
 * Who else could it be? If Belgutei, I'll remove him.
 * Yes -- grammatically if not logically, it could be either Belgutei or Temüjin. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * : I would suggest restating who this is, and how come T. was about to become his son-in-law.
 * Is this just an ELEGVAR problem? If so, rephrased.
 * : is that really all that much? A hundred square miles is a ten-by-ten square, which doesn't exactly strike me as a mighty kingdom in itself. Can we be more specific?
 * Specific and Mongol Empire don't really go together, but you're right: looking at a map, it is clear that the Kereit controlled somewhere in the region of 100,000 square miles. I don't know if "looking at a map" counts as a RS, though. Thoughts?
 * I vaguely remember that there's been an RFC on this, but I'd suggest that it falls under the same heading as making a routine calculation (which doesn't count as OR), especially when we're deliberately sticking well within the error bars. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we know when or how Chiledu died?
 * No, sadly.
 * : we've previously glossed nökor only as "personal companion"; it sounds here as if it means something more like "servant"?
 * It's not–it's akin to the Roman patron-client relationship. Edited.
 * : this isn't clear: where have the Song come from? "Formerly" might be better than "traditionally" (was it really a tradition to think this?)
 * Edited.
 * : was that Temüjin and Toghrul together, or the Merkits, Naimans and Tatars?
 * Yes. ;)
 * : MOS:IDIOM: were exactly 10% of them killed?
 * That's the historical usage; common usage is "to kill a large number of something" (Cambridge).
 * : by Temüjin?
 * No?
 * Who executed them, then? I assumed that T. accepted their snitchery and then executed them for it; I'm now quite confused. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh right yes that's correct; I assumed you mean "was betrayed by Temüjin by companions". Sorry, I don't know what I was thinking. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In the quotation box of the Baljuna Covenant, 'Great Work' should be in single quotes, as it's within a double-quoted passage. Despite aesthetics, left-align beats right-align for readability and accessibility.
 * Shame, but done. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Currently done up to "Early reign". More to come.


 * : Should be reform, I think. I would also put a comma after "Empire".
 * : not quite correctly phrased: presumably each one had their own minqan, so something like "were each given command of one...".
 * All done.
 * : I'd cut even as editorialising (it gives the sense that we should be surprised by this).
 * We should be—RS devote great attention to it: e.g. Ratchnevsky talks about how the grant to the herdsmen is a flaw in Vladimirtsov's Soviet analysis.
 * OK: in that case, I'd explicitly say that this was surprising and why (we shouldn't take for granted that Mongolian nomads were strictly anti-meritocratic, or assume that our audiences do). UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * : "a pivot of governmental administration" isn't totally clear to me (how does administration pivot, exactly?) -- would rephrase per MOS:IDIOM. Are we sure that "military academy" isn't slightly overselling things -- it's one thing to say that people learned how to do military things, but the term implies a high level of formality, organisation, curriculum etc that don't sound very likely to me.
 * An administration pivots between peacetime governing, military operations, and judicial/commercial/religious duties. Our article defines Military academy as "an educational institution which prepares candidates for service in the officer corps"—which is precisely what the keshig was. When the keshig became less prominent in the later Chagatai Khanate, its army became increasingly ineffective, unable to produce generals of sufficient quality to defend the realm. Formal curriculum? Perhaps not. Formality and organisation? Without a doubt.
 * "Pivot" is still a metaphor in this context, though: MOS:IDIOM advises us to use the most literal language possible. I'm also unclear as to how an organisation can be a "pivot" under the definition you've suggested. Is there a more concrete way to phrase this? Likewise, for "military academy", I'd go with "a place where future generals learned military skills" or similar -- the dictionary definition may not be totally unsuitable, but the connotations and implications are unsound and will lead many readers in the wrong direction. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed "pivot" to "centre"; I disagree about "military academy", which is explicitly used in the literature.
 * : do these titles reflect actual responsibilities, or are they more ceremonial/symbolic?
 * Actual duties.
 * So those poor 2,000 men just carry around a quiver? I hope they at least had a corresponding corps of bow-bearers? I'm being slightly facetious, but I wonder whether there's something like the Macedonian hypaspists ("shield-bearers") going on here -- that is, they did carry quivers, but that wasn't all they did. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, they had participatory roles in the administration/military, like the day and night guards, but they were also just "quiver-bearer guards". I don't think we know enough on the subject to elaborate further, sorry. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A genuine question: would something like be an improvement?  UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 18:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You know what? The detail isn't that important, and more suited to Military of the Mongol Empire, which I intend to get to in the near future. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * : I would get rid of this: isn't that just a flowery way of saying "would serve"?
 * True.
 * : as he only had one youngest brother, there should be commas around the name.
 * : a very long sentence: I'd break it after taiga.
 * similarly, consider making a break after refuge.
 * : clearer as undefended, the Mongols lacked ... and were unable to...
 * : I'd cut innovative as WP:PUFFERY.
 * All done.
 * : would it be anachronistic to name the Great Wall here?
 * I think so, because it's not the structure most think of; this one was far, far i


 * : given the way we've phrased this, I assume other people think he made the decision earlier? Who are they?
 * I'll come back to this—I know they are there, but I can't seem to find them. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have any more comments ? No worries if not. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get to the rest over the next couple of days, if that would be helpful. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * : consider a rephrase per MOS:IDIOM ("wait before"?), as presumably he stood up from time to time.
 * : allegedly is a dangerous word (WP:WEASELWORDS). Better to report the source of this allegation, if we know it.
 * : to me, breaking is a violent action (that is, driving away someone else's besieging army): I'd suggest lifting as he did it to his own siege.
 * All done.
 * : two things here: firstly, why would Genghis see this as anything to do with the peace treaty? Secondly, when exactly is immediately: we give the impression that this happened days or weeks after the end of the siege, but haven't actually specified.
 * 1) clarified 2) we don't know
 * : suggest reminding readers of where these people are.
 * Done
 * : You could cut personally, and consider doing away with the first bit about Genghis's emotions: we haven't traced his mental state throughout (and I'd question how far any primary source could ever have known it), and I think it's better to stick to the verifiable material that G.'s friend was killed, and he prepared a retaliatory expedition to punish it.
 * His subsequent actions and judgements make it clear that he was personally affected. E.g. he took personal responsibility for Boroqul's children, effectively making them minor members of the royal family. As most modern historians accept the description of his mental state (I have multiple sources on hand) I feel it can remain in the article.
 * : ambiguous: was he or his corpse decapitated?
 * : our phrasing here makes these sound like states, whereas the article makes them sound like individual merchants.
 * : elegant variation, but we generally avoid that for clarity: suggest simply he.
 * All clarified
 * : we use the singular in phrases like this: a two-mile run.
 * I'm surprised that Great Mongol Raid (or similar) doesn't seem to have an article. On another wikilinking note, suggest pulling the link on "long siege" to cover the 'the", making clear that we're talking about this specific siege. Similarly with "brutal campaign" a little later: cover the "a".
 * In the pipeline; good calls.
 * : what does "a programme of concentrated devastation" mean, and what does it tell us that "every city that resisted was destroyed" doesn't?
 * Not much; removed.
 * : contemporary Persian historians? Also, we've only given one number, so a number.
 * Good catches.
 * : the link to Delhi Sultanate comes as a bit of a surprise. Would a different name in the text be more accurate?
 * I think linking South Asia would be discouraged per MOS:OVERLINK
 * I don't think so, and removed.
 * : it would be highly odd to besiege a place with no defences or defenders: after all, without either of those, you can just walk in.
 * Fair enough.
 * : better as fell? I think we need to be careful to make sure that this biography doesn't turn into hagiography, and suffered could be read as building sympathy for the subject.
 * : this is not a term I've come across: could simply cut urban-bound or change to sedentary if you wish.
 * Removed.
 * Italicise (or, even better, stick it in a transliteration template).
 * Done.
 * : per MOS:SAID, I think attests gives the false impression either of this being true, or of Marco Polo having witnessed it.
 * : should definitely remove personally here.
 * Both done.
 * : not sure about using the adverb here if we're only going to cite Atwood: it gives the strong impression that Atwood is clearly right, or that his argument is strong, and we can't do that without a third source that says so.
 * Removed.
 * : comma off unlike his older brothers. Perhaps, however, the whole of would be better as something like the youngest son would have had the least time to gain...
 * : cut it has been noticed (we would hardly be reporting something that had never been noticed)
 * Both done.
 * : in the east of what? Similarly, : to many of our readers, all of these places are in the east.
 * Of the Mongol territories, as is I think clear from context.
 * : fatherland has some baggage attached to it. Is this a metaphor that the Mongols would have understood? If not, suggest "heartland".
 * True; adjusted.
 * I would suggest reminding the reader that Tolui was the youngest son. I'm not sure about here: we've only established that youngest sons were favoured in inheritance after the father's death, and cast doubt on whether that would really apply to land and titles.
 * Done.
 * : not particularly clear. Suggest something like this, with the bracketed issues solved:
 * Altered.
 * : Jochi's or Genghis's?
 * : could cut serious: if it's fatal, it's serious by definition.
 * : this raises the eyebrows: did nobody have an issue with him?
 * All removed.
 * I think the level of detail on Ogedei's character, as well as Tolui's post-Genghis machinations, might be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in a biography of Genghis, though it would certainly be well placed in Ogedei's own article.
 * The succession is highly emphasised in nearly all historical sources, both as something Genghis managed to solve in the short-term but failed in the long-term. I think it is fine, but if other reviewers disagree at FAC, I will trim it.
 * : I would put "cat's eyes" in quotes. Any idea what it means?
 * I've provided a link.
 * : when meeting Genghis. presumably: the last person mentioned was Börte.
 * But Börte is certainly not a "him".
 * : derived, but I'm a bit sketchy about this one as a bald statement of fact. Suggest something like "Atwood has suggested that..."
 * Good call.
 * I would move the Ogedei portrait to the right, as it faces to the left, which would also keep a nice consistent left margin for readability and accessibility.
 * Done.
 * : didn't he just fall out with his son for not sending him a large share of plunder?
 * There's a difference between companions and sons. Companions gave loyalty, and were rewarded with wealth; in Genghis' service, they became a lot wealthier. Sons received appanages and the promise future rule, and in return were expected to pay every respect to their father.
 * : cut (right): there's a MoS on it somewhere, but it won't always be in the same place on different displays.
 * Fair enough.
 * : I don't quite understand this.
 * It requires an appreciation of the complexity of eastern forms of address, so I have removed it.
 * : the second part at least definitely needs to be framed as an opinion, and attributed as such, rather than as a statement of fact.
 * I don't think it does; that is the general historical consensus among historians
 * I find the second paragraph of "Character and achievements" a little fawning in its expression.
 * I think you might mean the third?
 * : it's not natural if it happens by human intervention.
 * : recommend cutting where necessary as potentially exculpatory (he used ruthless, brutal violence successfully to achieve military and political ends, but we'd never allow the excuse of "necessity" to another military commander who did the same).
 * Both removed.
 * : this needs to be toned down a bit: we can't say for certain that he never forgot any nasty thing anyone said to him!
 * Removed.
 * : great, as we're not comparing it with anything.
 * : would cut undoubtedly (adverbs are generally suspicious things, in my book, and this one ironically does the opposite of its intended use: cutting it makes the statement into a matter of undoubted fact).
 * All done.
 * : are these things opposites (they aren't in most places)? In particular, I'm not sure how you can fit someone into the Sleeping Hero legend unless you imagine him as having done political leadership, or as doing so in the future.
 * They don't have to be opposites. Presumably it's the same way Christians/Muslims believe that Jesus/Muhammad will return and bring salvation—political leadership isn't really the focus.
 * : neater as simply "Soviet-aligned", keeping the link.
 * : cut famous as WP:PUFFERY
 * Done.
 * : I would call this the Chinese Communist Party (which was not the ruling party for a good chunk of modern Chinese history).
 * Adjusted.
 * : I'll be honest, this doesn't pass the sniff test to me: happy to be convinced by some really good (ideally Russian) sources, though.
 * A lengthy discussion and extensive bibliography can be found in Halperin, Charles J. 2004. "Omissions of National Memory: Russian Historiography on the Golden Horde as Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion," Ab Imperio 4 (3).
 * : that's a pretty blanket statement for a billion or so people.
 * An extensive bibliography can be found in Biran 2012 pp. 128–136.

That's probably my lot for now: I haven't looked properly though the bibliography, but may do so for formatting nitpicks if it would be helpful. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 14:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for all your comments. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)