154:
267:
Thanks for your work on this article! I definitely agree with
Kavyansh.Singh that citations are the main issue here. Having one citation per paragraph is probably the minimum; more may be required in when contentious or disputed details are presented. I'd really encourage you to look for a few more
353:
and it devotes only a few lines to this battle, and military history of this sort is not a very common focus in itself among
English-speaking historians of ancient China. You might need to look for (other) older sources under the Wade–Giles name "Kai-hsia". Since you're a native Chinese speaker,
268:
sources. You rely pretty heavily on just a couple of works, so adding several more would likely improve the article. With ancient topics like this one, you'll likely find that scholars have a lot of disagreements about the details, and being neutral requires giving each of those perspectives
323:
More generally, there's far too little analysis compared to the narrative account of the battle. The narrative discussion of stratagems needs to be balanced by some kind of broader discussion of causes, context, and implications: why were certain stratagems important? What are the unstated
324:
implications of the sources? How do Han Xin's stratagems relate to broader history of
Chinese strategic thinking? Etc. (These are just examples of potential topics—the content would have to depend on the topics that are actually discussed in secondary sources.)
331:"—perhaps "most significant" rather than "greatest"). More details on the disintegration of Chu, the broader historical implications of the battle, and the battle's legacy in Chinese thought and historiography would be very welcome here.
341:
article, already cited, might give some pointers on possible ways to contextualise the battle—note that the narrative of the battle itself makes up only a relatively small part of their article! For example, have a look at the the
354:
though, you have a much larger range of literature available to you, and I would definitely encourage researching
Chinese-language academic sources that could be cited in the article. —
280:
can help you get copies of paywalled books/articles. At the moment, this article probably wouldn't get too far at GAN, but with some work it has the potential to meet the standards.
276:; while this isn't prohibited, it's generally a bad idea to use these very often. Google Books, Google Scholar, and the Internet Archive can be good places to find sources, and the
299:
Kavyansh and EW above have picked up on the lack of inline citations and secondary sources already so I just wanted to add some observations about the content of the article:
313:
to me. At minimum it would be good to start with a paragraph introducing the context of the Chu–Han
Contention and discussing the broader political importance of the battle.
171:
I hope to get this article to a GA, as it is an interesting bit of history. I've cleaned up the text and added some citations, but I still need some help with these.
346:
piece's discussion of the differences between Xiang Yu and Liu Bang as commanders (the part that begins "Tanner describes the differences in the two men").
244:
76:
126:
236:
122:
107:
99:
202:
69:
318:(The fact is disputed, as it is absent from certain Chinese historiographies, and most historians believe it to be fictional.)
372:
285:
62:
50:
253:
220:
198:
358:
289:
281:
257:
183:
44:
327:
Like the "Background" section, the "Aftermath" section is far too short and, as written, potentially POV ("
305:
The Han forces had won many major victories against the Chu, but they still only controlled part of China.
216:
115:
17:
349:
Finding good
English-language sources might be difficult; I had a look in the relevant volume of the
320:
Aside from citations, what are the arguments in this dispute? What is the evidence that they rely on?
269:
249:
179:
235:
The lead section of article is not long enough to summarize the article. It needs to comply with
273:
224:
208:
92:
277:
193:
Hi, I have read the article and found the following points which needs to be worked out.
175:
366:
309:
355:
212:
161:
337:
201:
and need for additional citations. It may be a quick fail for GA as according to
303:
The "Background" section could use more contextualisation. Kicking off with "
207:
it has cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{
243:
Rest seems to be fine, but I strongly recommend the article to be
148:
247:
to resolve the gramatical errors before GAN. Good Luck!
141:
134:
103:
329:
the Han
Dynasty, one of the greatest Chinese dynasties
197:The articles has multiple issues dealing with less
70:
8:
272:. The "Annals of Xiang Yu" appears to be a
77:
63:
32:
35:
328:
317:
304:
206:
7:
24:
316:This comment needs elaboration:
263:Comments from Extraordinary Writ
152:
1:
189:Comments from Kavyansh.Singh
389:
351:Cambridge History of China
338:World History Encyclopedia
307:" comes across as pretty
219:}} or large numbers of {{
359:23:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
290:17:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
258:12:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
278:reference exchange desk
184:17:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
373:May 2021 peer reviews
295:Comments from Nizolan
164:discussion is closed.
18:Knowledge:Peer review
282:Extraordinary Writ
237:Knowledge Lead MOS
169:
168:
142:Watch peer review
87:
86:
380:
199:inline citations
156:
155:
149:
139:
130:
111:
79:
72:
65:
47:
33:
28:Battle of Gaixia
388:
387:
383:
382:
381:
379:
378:
377:
363:
362:
297:
265:
221:citation needed
191:
153:
145:
120:
97:
91:
83:
51:Manual of Style
43:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
386:
384:
376:
375:
365:
364:
333:
332:
325:
321:
314:
296:
293:
274:primary source
264:
261:
250:Kavyansh.Singh
248:
241:
240:
233:
190:
187:
167:
166:
157:
147:
146:
144:
90:
85:
84:
82:
81:
74:
67:
59:
56:
55:
54:
53:
48:
38:
37:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
385:
374:
371:
370:
368:
361:
360:
357:
352:
347:
345:
340:
339:
330:
326:
322:
319:
315:
312:
311:
310:in medias res
306:
302:
301:
300:
294:
292:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
262:
260:
259:
255:
251:
246:
238:
234:
232:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
204:
200:
196:
195:
194:
188:
186:
185:
181:
177:
172:
165:
163:
158:
151:
150:
143:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
89:
88:
80:
75:
73:
68:
66:
61:
60:
58:
57:
52:
49:
46:
45:Copying check
42:
41:
40:
39:
34:
29:
26:
19:
350:
348:
343:
336:
334:
308:
298:
266:
242:
229:similar tags
228:
217:unreferenced
192:
173:
170:
159:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
27:
335:The useful
245:copy-edited
203:GA criteria
162:peer review
104:visual edit
270:due weight
176:Hipponias
367:Category
174:Thanks,
356:Nizolan
227:}}, or
225:clarify
209:cleanup
127:history
108:history
94:Article
36:Toolbox
223:}}, {{
215:}}, {{
211:}}, {{
160:This
136:Watch
16:<
286:talk
254:talk
180:talk
123:edit
100:edit
344:WHE
213:POV
369::
288:)
256:)
205:,
182:)
140:•
125:|
106:|
102:|
284:(
252:(
239:.
231:.
178:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
78:e
71:t
64:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.