Wikipedia:Peer review/Imperialism in Asia/archive1

Imperialism in Asia
This article is an important one that unfortunately has never attracted too many editors over the years. In the past couple of days I expanded almost all of the incomplete sections; but there has been no no reaction on the talk page, or no one else editing the article. I'm hoping that a peer review will finally manage to attract some feedback to this article, and eventually bring it up to the quality to whcih an article on a subject of its importance should conform. 172 | Talk 01:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Took a quick look and seems very good (I'll read it more closely later). It raises the question as to whether there was imperialism in Asia before Europeans (Ghengus Khan?, Ancient China?, etc) or should the article be renamed European Imperialism in Asia? Seabhcán 14:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. This article suffers from systemic bias.  The Chinese empire began forming around 400 B.C. if I remember correctly.  Japanese imperialism needs to be discussed.  Mongol imperialism.  Also, what about the Indian empires?  Mughal, Gupta, etc--those are part of Asia.  And the Central Asian empires (e.g. Qajar), and the Islamic empires that penetrated into Central Asia.  Also, the Russian empire in Siberia.  This article should be moved to European imperialism in East Asia.   &mdash;thames 15:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback... I meant to insert a placeholder for "Asian empires before European contact" as the first section. I'd forgotten, so I just inserted it. (I feel slightly embarrassed now that I forgot to reassure everyone that I had not completely forgotten the Indian and Chinese dynasties, the Mongols, the Islamic empires, etc. at first.) At any rate, this means the first section and the last two are left to be finished. I can finish the last two sections on Japan and the postwar era. But I'm hoping that I can find someone else to write the section on Asian imperialism in the ancient and medieval periods, as that it outside my scope of competence.

I favor the current structure presupposed by the existing content and the placeholder headings (but I am very open to feedback) because European imperialism in Asia does not set reasonable boundaries for a topic, as it would exclude from discussions of "the New Imperialism" the important factors of the rise of Japanese and American imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries. In other words, if this article is going to be broken up (and it may not have to be if a strong section on "Asian empires before European contact" is written for the beginning), it's better to divide up the topic by time as opposed to place. 172 | Talk 20:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Niiiice, I can see this FACed soon. Some notes: lead is too long, needs trimming (and that's comming from me, long lead fan :). I wish I was more familiar with this subject, alas, I know very little about this time and place. I think Japan imperialism pre and during IIWW deserves a significant expantion, as it is a very interesting proof that non-Western societies can be as imperial and the Westerners. Something on modern (communist) China (absobtion of Tibet, evolution into modern regional and global power and neighbour fears) would also be nice. I am looking forward to reading this during FAC process! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. Japan and modern Communist China are the two main areas left unfinshed. I was making good progress earlier, but got distracted in work on other pages. 172 | Talk 05:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Should this article be called European imperialism in Asia to differentiate it from Arab imperialism? What about the Greek and Roman Empires?  A lot of statements (for instance about the development or destruction of social systems, or the mentalities of the people) could use more references. Smmurphy 15:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

About the article: Very comprehensive, but the section structure is heavily granulated. Consider merging or summarizing a lot of them. Getting an overview is a chore, never mind actually reading the whole thing. Try not to focus so narrowly on the actions of individual nations. Make broader strokes, if anything. That can make it to smooth out any POVs. And the lead is absolutely gigantic; two paragraphs at most will suffice. We have a lot of really long history FAs, and I really don't see a good reason for it. Please keep the focus on achieving a summary style.

Please try not to link more than half the dates, decades and centuries in the article. They're just not that relevant.

Peter Isotalo 23:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)